DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 102707--------------------------------------------------
NIP received 21 days late
By: Caught Date: December 16, 2025, 3:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All, Wife is the RK and received NIP for the alleged offence
on the 22nd on November, 80mph at 70mph motorway. The NIP landed
sometime over the weekend between 13-15th of Dec.
We live at same address for at last 5 years and car is with us
for at least 5 years. The V5C is correct, so only reason why it
was late must be due to post sitting on it. I am saving now all
CCTV recordings, to see when it exactly arrived.
I have read a lot about the issue and to be honest I am not sure
how I can prove that it was not delivered on time apart from
having cctv showing post man dropping it over the weekend and
wife collecting it from our box which is outside on Monday. I am
not sure I will be able to prove that the letter dropped by post
man was the letter with NIP. I read good thread on Pistonheads
where someone won the HJ but that was in 2009
HTML https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=533717&i=240.<br
/>Also many threads on here which refer to errors on the NIP or
were late clearly because RK changed either car or address, but
in my situation that is not the case.
So the question is how I can prove the late delivery?
Thanks you
#Post#: 102711--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP received 21 days late
By: FuzzyDuck Date: December 16, 2025, 3:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 102719--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP received 21 days late
By: Caught Date: December 16, 2025, 3:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for prompt reply. Yes I have read it all. We also did
expect the letter, however I doubt I could pin the post man with
the delivery as we need to go to work, not possible to man the
letter box all day and as you mentioned 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. Secondly
his NIP was delayed due to RM strike which is also wired as vat
and other submissions were allowed to be filled late.
#Post#: 102741--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP received 21 days late
By: NewJudge Date: December 16, 2025, 4:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]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. [/quote]
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.
[quote]Secondly his NIP was delayed due to RM strike which is
also wired as vat and other submissions were allowed to be
filled late.[/quote]
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:
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2924.html
#Post#: 102785--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP received 21 days late
By: Caught Date: December 17, 2025, 2:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks of your reply.
Not sure I got it correctly. You stated that I am in different
position to Peter. Not sure why? The only difference between
myself and Peter is that he got postman to confirm delivery date
but as you stated later "presumption of service" (in two days)
was not rebuttable. I believe they can easily prove that they
prepared the NIP in required timescale as it is dated 28th of
Nov. So prosecutors will assume that NIP was served on time even
without evidence of delivery which would be in case of Rec/Reg
delivery. I think, I agree with that but how can I prove NIP sat
for two weeks in post office or in the police outbox tray?
Second place where I am confused is your statements about law
and fact. In my case RK got the NIP late not the driver. The
driver was not named yet. There is no strike and letter was late
that is the fact however how can I prove it was late in terms of
the law, is what I am asking?
Is in not the case that the claimant must provide the evidence
the NIP was delivered? Otherwise we could be living in the world
when anybody can issue an invoice and claim it was delivered,
but ignored?
In Peter’s case the judge confirms that it is on the
police and the prosecuting authorities to prove NIP was
delivered on time and only way to do it is presumption of
service which cannot be rebutted.
So basically it is impossible to prove NIP was not delivered.
Thanks to Peter’s case we know it can get late, that is
fact but in law terms was still delivered on presumption.
Do I get it correctly?
#Post#: 102789--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP received 21 days late
By: The Slithy Tove Date: December 17, 2025, 2:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 102805--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP received 21 days late
By: 666 Date: December 17, 2025, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Caught link=topic=9180.msg102785#msg102785
date=1765958659]
In Peter’s case the judge confirms that it is on the police and
the prosecuting authorities to prove NIP was delivered on time
and only way to do it is presumption of service which cannot be
rebutted.
So basically it is impossible to prove NIP was not delivered.
Thanks to Peter’s case we know it can get late, that is fact but
in law terms was still delivered on presumption.
Do I get it correctly?
[/quote]
No, the presumption can indeed be rebutted.
The relevant section of the Interpretation Act says: "... the
service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing,
pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and,
unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time
at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of
post."
But, as you know, proving the contrary is not easy.
#Post#: 102811--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP received 21 days late
By: Caught Date: December 17, 2025, 4:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 102813--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP received 21 days late
By: Caught Date: December 17, 2025, 4:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks 66 and six I agree that is why I have asked about ways to
prove it? I believe it is impossible unless the burden of
providing the proof is on the claimant but he can hide behind
poorly written legislation and date provided on NIP which is not
date when was delivered.
#Post#: 102820--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP received 21 days late
By: NewJudge Date: December 17, 2025, 5:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Not sure I got it correctly. You stated that I am in
different position to Peter. Not sure why?[/quote]
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.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page