DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 102527--------------------------------------------------
"Reminder" received - but no NIP
By: OnFourWheels Date: December 15, 2025, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I will try and keep this brief...
Alleged Speeding Offence on 20th November 2025. (35 in a 30
Zone)
Keeper received a "Reminder of application for identity of the
driver" on 13th December. This was dated 9th December, and
stated that the Keeper had not yet responded to the NIP and a
"copy" was enclosed. The date on the "copy" NIP is 25th
November.
Keeper genuinely hasn't received a previous NIP and is sceptical
that one was actually sent within 14 days, which would run until
the 4th December.
So, questions:
How solid is the 14 day rule? There is no argument over details,
names, addresses etc.
Should the Police be able to demonstrate that a letter was
posted within those 14 days, by way of proof of postage?
I appreciate they don't and won't use recorded or tracked
delivery, but is it the case that if they just say they posted
it, they did? or should they be able to evidence this?
Thanks,
OFW
#Post#: 102536--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Reminder" received - but no NIP
By: andy_foster Date: December 15, 2025, 11:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Two separate issues - the requirement (on the police) to give
warning of intended prosecution under s. 1 Road Traffic
Offenders Act 1988, and the requirement on the addressee to
provide information regarding the driver's identity under s.
172(7) Road Traffic Act 1988.
Typically both of these things are bundled up into a single
document, but the rules for the purposes of each requirement
differ.
There is no time limit for a requirement under s. 172(7) to be
served. The requirement to provide the information is not
dependent on the possibility of defences to the speeding charge
(such as failure to serve a NIP on the RK within the 14 days).
The requirements of s. 1 RTOA 1988 are presumed to have been
complied with unless and until the contrary is proven. It is not
sufficient to simply put the prosecution to proof.
S. 7 Interpretation Act 1978 provides a rebuttable presumption
of service for both if the prosecution can prove that the
notice(s) was properly posted, again unless and until the
contrary is proven. The presumption for first class post is that
the notice was delivered 2 working days after posting.
Proof of posting would typically be a manifest showing that x
number of items were collected by Postman Pat, and another
showing that x number of notices were prepared on that day,
including the one they are claiming was sent to you.
Proving the contrary would entail the defence persuading the
court that it was more likely than not that the notice(s) was
not delivered within the applicable time-frame or at all. This
would be a matter of fact for the court to find based on the
evidence you present.
Most forces that still issue "reminders" do so after the 28 days
to provide the information has already lapsed, meaning that they
are not so much a reminder as a second bite at the cherry.
However, we do hear of a number of cases where the "reminder" is
sent in time to actually remind the addressee of the original 28
day requirement which is still ticking away.
#Post#: 102541--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Reminder" received - but no NIP
By: OnFourWheels Date: December 15, 2025, 11:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=andy_foster link=topic=9158.msg102536#msg102536
date=1765818390]
Two separate issues - the requirement (on the police) to give
warning of intended prosecution under s. 1 Road Traffic
Offenders Act 1988, and the requirement on the addressee to
provide information regarding the driver's identity under s.
172(7) Road Traffic Act 1988.
Typically both of these things are bundled up into a single
document, but the rules for the purposes of each requirement
differ.
There is no time limit for a requirement under s. 172(7) to be
served. The requirement to provide the information is not
dependent on the possibility of defences to the speeding charge
(such as failure to serve a NIP on the RK within the 14 days).
The requirements of s. 1 RTOA 1988 are presumed to have been
complied with unless and until the contrary is proven. It is not
sufficient to simply put the prosecution to proof.
S. 7 Interpretation Act 1978 provides a rebuttable presumption
of service for both if the prosecution can prove that the
notice(s) was properly posted, again unless and until the
contrary is proven. The presumption for first class post is that
the notice was delivered 2 working days after posting.
Proof of posting would typically be a manifest showing that x
number of items were collected by Postman Pat, and another
showing that x number of notices were prepared on that day,
including the one they are claiming was sent to you.
Proving the contrary would entail the defence persuading the
court that it was more likely than not that the notice(s) was
not delivered within the applicable time-frame or at all. This
would be a matter of fact for the court to find based on the
evidence you present.
Most forces that still issue "reminders" do so after the 28 days
to provide the information has already lapsed, meaning that they
are not so much a reminder as a second bite at the cherry.
However, we do hear of a number of cases where the "reminder" is
sent in time to actually remind the addressee of the original 28
day requirement which is still ticking away.
[/quote]
Thank you Andy, very helpful.
Its Devon and Cornwall Police FWIW. Their "Reminder" was sent 19
days after the date of the alleged offence and 15 days after the
date on their "copy" NIP. I strongly suspect that the NIP wasn't
actually sent within the 14 days, and rather than admit this
they have sent a "reminder". However, you've confirmed my
suspicions that I would have to somehow prove this, which is
essentially impossible isn't it, because the Police never lie...
#Post#: 102555--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Reminder" received - but no NIP
By: Southpaw82 Date: December 15, 2025, 12:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s not that the police never lie (sometimes they do, and
sometimes they are mistaken) but more that you’re gambling on
them not having a written record of the NIP being sent - which
you have no way of knowing.
*****************************************************