Free Traffic Legal Advice

That 2008 case was Peter Gidden who used to be a member of the previous incarnation of this site, called Pepipoo. In that case Peter suspected that a NIP was coming his way and so when it was finally delivered, he had the postman witness him open the envelope and view the NIP and its late service. Even with an independent witness, Peter failed to convince the magistrate of his case, as well as the following appeal. It took a second appeal before his conviction was overturned.

Peter failed to convince magistrate so that 14 days rule is basically a scam as we can not prove it otherwise even with postman statements.

You are in a different position to Peter Gidden (at least when his conviction was finally overturned by the High Court).

The prosecution eventually conceded that the NIP had indeed been served late (though at what stage that concession was made is unclear). But they went on to argue that the "presumption of service" (in two days) was not rebuttable. This argument, if successful, would have meant that regardless of when - or even if - the NIP was actually served, if it could be proved that it had been sent in time then that would be good enough.

The High Court found that although this was the case had the NIP been sent by Registered or Recorded delivery it was not so for a NIP sent by first class post. Since Mr Gidden's NIP was sent by first class post and since the prosecution had conceded that the NIP was served late, the court found in his favour. The issue - at least for the High Court - was not whether the NIP had been served on time. The prosecution conceded that it hadn't. The issue for them was whether the presumption of service could be rebutted.

Secondly his NIP was delayed due to RM strike which is also wired as vat and other submissions were allowed to be filled late.

That is not correct when service of a NIP is involved.

If you convince the court that the NIP was served late you should be acquitted. If you are not then Gidden should help. The Gidden case is really most useful in response to the often heard remark when drivers query a late NIP which is "It was posted in time - that's all that matters" because it isn't. It is not so much use in helping establish whether the NIP was served in time as the judgement dealt with the matter of law, not the matter of fact. The High Court judgement concluded with this:

"I appreciate that this construction of the legislation may create problems for the police and prosecuting authorities, particularly when the postal service is on strike with the inevitable delays in delivery. The authorities must then adopt other means of warning, provided by section 1, if they are to avoid the risk of late delivery. Alternatively, the remedy lies in the hands of Parliament by amending section 1(2) of the 1988 Act. It is not, however, for the courts to overcome the resulting inconvenience by distorting the clear language which Parliament has adopted."


Here's the High Court judgement:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2924.html

While we all expect the Authorities to abide by the rules and that a late NIP should fail to get a successful prosecution, you also need to be pragmatic. 80 in a 70 is easily within scope of an awareness course, so apart from the cost and time to attend, there are no points on the licence. The alternative is a severe uphill battle in getting a court to accept the late NIP and the cost in losing that battle.

Your choice.

Don't forget the NIP must still be replied to within 28 days, whichever path you choose to follow. And (according to the dates on the NIP), most of those 28 days have already elapsed. Don't miss that.

Thank you.
I get that and agree. You speak common sense.
Peter apparently spent £15k on fees when compared to £100, makes sense to accept easier choice.
I would suggest to add more detailed explanation to the Read This First so others will not bother experts on here with similar questions. 14 days rule is basically a scam unless issue date on NIP is 12 days after alleged offence.  I will not go to the scenarios how this silly system of delivery could be abused in malicious way. Will leave it to peoples imagination.

Not sure I got it correctly. You stated  that I am in different position to Peter. Not sure why?

Sorry, perhaps I didn’t make myself clear.

The problem you have is proving late delivery. Mr Gidden did not have that problem. It is unclear whether the prosecution agreed that the NIP was late during his trial in the Magistrates’ Court. But it seems clear from the High Court judgment that the concession had been made in the Crown Court appeal. Here’s a passage from the High Court judgement:

"On 27th February 2009, before His Honour Judge Tremberg and two justices, the Crown Court dismissed his appeal and held that service was properly effected, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant did not receive the notice until 16 days after the commission of the offence."

The issue for Mr Gidden’s “case stated” in High Court did not involve the late delivery. The Court was asked to rule on whether the “presumption of service” (in two days) could be relied upon if proof of posting could show that, in the normal course of the postal service, it would arrive in time. As an aside, a case stated for decision by the High Court would not involve revisiting a matter of fact (in this case, whether the NIP was delivered late). That avenue, in normal circumstances, is exhausted following an appeal to the Crown Court.

Gidden is often cited when a late NIP issue is mentioned. But it doesn’t help you in your position because it did not consider whether the NIP was late, but only, accepting that it was, whether that late service satisfied the requirement of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders’ Act to serve a NIP within 14 days.

The prosecution argued that the presumption of service was not rebuttable; Mr Gidden argued that it was. The High Court agreed and since it was accepted that the NIP was delivered late, the court found in his favour.

Thanks to all for replies.

Was generic complaint/reply to the police about late NIP, ever posted on here?