DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 95115--------------------------------------------------
Second NIP supercedes original??
By: desktop1 Date: October 22, 2025, 3:21 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...
#Post#: 95116--------------------------------------------------
Re: Second NIP supercedes original??
By: JustLoveCars Date: October 22, 2025, 3:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=desktop1 link=topic=8485.msg95115#msg95115
date=1761121318]
This is relevant because I am trying to run the 6 month clock
out...
[/quote]
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 author=desktop1 link=topic=8485.msg95115#msg95115
date=1761121318]
Does a repeat NIP [just with different print date] void the
original?
[/quote]
Do not confuse NIP's with s172 requests. I would argue the
first s172 request made holds, thus the 7 days.
#Post#: 95117--------------------------------------------------
Re: Second NIP supercedes original??
By: desktop1 Date: October 22, 2025, 3:37 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...
#Post#: 95120--------------------------------------------------
Re: Second NIP supercedes original??
By: NewJudge Date: October 22, 2025, 4:28 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.
#Post#: 95121--------------------------------------------------
Re: Second NIP supercedes original??
By: andy_foster Date: October 22, 2025, 4:52 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.
#Post#: 95124--------------------------------------------------
Re: Second NIP supercedes original??
By: JustLoveCars Date: October 22, 2025, 5:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=desktop1 link=topic=8485.msg95117#msg95117
date=1761122233]
Date of offence 4/7/25. I was not the RK, hence delay.
[/quote]Getting a 'timeout' from that isn't going to happen.
[quote author=desktop1 link=topic=8485.msg95117#msg95117
date=1761122233]
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...
[/quote]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).
#Post#: 95150--------------------------------------------------
Re: Second NIP supercedes original??
By: disgruntchelt Date: October 22, 2025, 7:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
*****************************************************