3. Second NIP supercedes original??
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Second NIP supercedes original??  (Read 615 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

desktop1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Second NIP supercedes original??
« on: October 22, 2025, 09:21:58 am »
Does a repeat NIP [just with different print date] void the original?

Got NIP....dated 29/9/25

Then 3 week slater they sent me a letter saying 'you haven't replied, reply within 7 days'.

They also enclosed a newly printed NIP...for same offence, but the date on it was they date they printed it [15/10/25].

The NIP says 'reply within 28 days of date of sevice' [presumably 2 days after print date].

Does that mean I can safely ignore the original NIP, ignore the reply within seven days'letter and instead simply reply within 28 days of this new NIP...?

Surely the new NIP supercedes the old one [wishful thinking!]?


This is relevant because I am trying to run the 6 month clock out...
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

JustLoveCars

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Second NIP supercedes original??
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2025, 09:30:02 am »
Quote from: desktop1 on October 22, 2025, 09:21:58 am
This is relevant because I am trying to run the 6 month clock out...
We need the full story.  Particularly the date of the alleged offence.  If you are trying to 'time out' an offence from September then you have very wishful thinking.

Quote from: desktop1 on October 22, 2025, 09:21:58 am
Does a repeat NIP [just with different print date] void the original?
Do not confuse NIP's with s172 requests.  I would argue the first s172 request made holds, thus the 7 days.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2025, 09:32:01 am by JustLoveCars »
Logged

desktop1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Second NIP supercedes original??
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2025, 09:37:13 am »
Date of offence 4/7/25. I was not the RK, hence delay.

Yes you're right; it's not an NIP [albeit that it says that at the top...it's a request for info as to the identity of the driver on the front, and an S172 on the rear...

 
Logged

NewJudge

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 823
  • Karma: +30/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Second NIP supercedes original??
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2025, 10:28:35 am »
As you now understand, the NIP is irrelevant. Not least because only one is required - that to the Registered Keeper. The police are not obliged to provide you with a NIP at all.

The relevant document is the "Request for Driver's Details". The answer to your question is that any subsequent requests or reminders do not nullify the first. The 28 days you have to reply is based on the date of the original.

This is important for two reasons. Firstly it means the six month rule for prosecution is only valid from one date and cannot be moved. Secondly it means that the police cannot make repeated requests for information regarding the same allegation, and thus overcome the six month rule by continually extending the time they have in which to prosecute.

You will have to extend matters until 4th January 26 to force a time out for the speeding offence and I imagine, if you haven't responded by early next month, the police will begin proceedings against you for failing to do so.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2025, 10:30:15 am by NewJudge »
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1253
  • Karma: +32/-40
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
Re: Second NIP supercedes original??
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2025, 10:52:57 am »
As a matter of law, there is only one s. 172 requirement made of a person in respect of an alleged offence.
There is no statutory provision for extend the 27 days (28 days beginning with date of service) to provide the information (other than the reasonably practicable defence which clearly does not apply here).

If a specified extension to the 27 days had been offered, it would be bad form to prosecute if you complied with the "revised" requirements. As it is, you were sent a reminder 7 days before the expiration of the 27 days, reminding you that the clock is ticking.
Logged
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.
Like Like x 1 View List

JustLoveCars

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Second NIP supercedes original??
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2025, 11:08:09 am »
Quote from: desktop1 on October 22, 2025, 09:37:13 am
Date of offence 4/7/25. I was not the RK, hence delay.
Getting a 'timeout' from that isn't going to happen.

Quote from: desktop1 on October 22, 2025, 09:37:13 am
Yes you're right; it's not an NIP [albeit that it says that at the top...it's a request for info as to the identity of the driver on the front, and an S172 on the rear...
Seems like you'll have to take it on the chin.  In fact, delaying matters could remove the offer of a course to avoid points (Assuming you qualify).
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List

disgruntchelt

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Karma: +0/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Second NIP supercedes original??
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2025, 01:41:49 pm »
Were you the driver.  If not provided you name the driver or who you believe was the driver by 28 days after the second s172 I wouldn’t imagine the police would prosecute you for FTF.  That might change if you don’t name the actual driver and the case times out.

However I can’t see how the driver gets a time out assuming you name them as late as possible.



Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Second NIP supercedes original??