Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: How are Bedfordshire Police Responding to the PACE Witness Statement?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
ade-cambs
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Bedfordshire
Date of the offence: - December 2006
Date of the NIP: - 8 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 15 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A1 Road Southbound, Beeston
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
NIP sent by first class or second class post NK - no longer have envelope - NOT recorded delivery.
How many current points do you have? - 0
Description of events:
Vehicle recorded at speed of 60mph in 50mph area (fixed camera).

The incident happened at 20:21 when it was dark. There were two flashes from behind the vehicle so the camera must have been set up to photograph the back of the vehicle, recording the speed of vehicles as they passed it.

Does anyone know how are responding to the PACE Witness Statement? Should I also mention that I received the notice 1 day late?


NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - No
Was there a valid reason for the NIP's late arrival? - Unsure
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • Complete the PACE witness statement.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v1.0.2: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:43:45 +0000
ade-cambs
I received NIP after 15 days. I phoned Bedfordshire Police Central Ticket Office and was advised that it was probably delivered a day late due to Christmas post but that the NIP is dated 27th December and that they will have a record that the NIP was given to Royal Mail in good time for 14 day delivery.

Is it worth trying the RAC legal letter approach when NIP was delivered only 1 day outside 14 days? I cannot really prove it was received on Thursday and not the Wednesday anyway as it wasn't sent Recorded Delivery.

If I go the PACE Witness Statement route does anyone know what response I am likely to get from Bedfordshire Police? As I currently have no points on my license would you advise to just pay up and shut up? I understand that if you already have a lot of points and face a ban then it is worth fighting but in my situation am I likely to actually achieve anything with a challenge?

Any advice will be greatly appreciated - Thanks.

Regards,
Ade

Bedfordshire Police
Date of the offence: - December 2006
Date of the NIP: - 8 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 15 days after the offence
Location of offence: - A1 Road Southbound, Beeston
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
NIP sent by first class or second class post NK - no longer have envelope - NOT recorded delivery.How many current points do you have? - 0

Description of events:

Vehicle recorded at speed of 60mph in 50mph area (fixed camera).

The incident happened at 20:21 when it was dark. There were two flashes from behind the vehicle so the camera must have been set up to photograph the back of the vehicle, recording the speed of vehicles as they passed it.
firefly
QUOTE (ade-cambs @ Mon, 8 Jan 2007 - 13:20) *
I received NIP after 15 days. I phoned Bedfordshire Police Central Ticket Office and was advised that it was probably delivered a day late due to Christmas post but that the NIP is dated 27th December and that they will have a record that the NIP was given to Royal Mail in good time for 14 day delivery.


Potentially this is the hardest thing to argue about with regards to non-service of NIPs. We don't have any case law regarding late NIPs issued by first class post. All we have is Groome v Driscoll, but that deals with recorded delivery issued NIPs - and it is the case that all scammers use to threaten people into 'fessing up.

I'd love to see someone take this to court, but I wouldn't expect anyone to be so foolhardy enough (except a few notables on here smile.gif ) to take it on.
Bluedart
Perhaps the scammers should sue the PO for failing to deliver on time.


Class act. First Class - The first choice
Overview

One of the most frequently used of our postal services, First Class mail aims to deliver your letter or packet the next working day, including Saturday. It costs just 32p for letters and small items weighing up to 100g.

Key features

* Quick and easy to use. If your mail weighs 100g or less, simply stick a First Class stamp on it
* You can buy First Class stamps in sheets of 100, rolls of up to 10,000, or book format from our online shop our online shop
* No maximum weight limit for First Class
* Maximum size restrictions apply - See FAQs
* Free First Class delivery of services for the blind, including talking newspapers and guide dog harnesses (call our customer services team on 0845 7740 740 for more details)
* Compensation of up to £32 for loss or damage, with your free certificate of posting (available from your local Post Office™ when you post your mail)
Mika
QUOTE (firefly @ Mon, 8 Jan 2007 - 13:41) *
Potentially this is the hardest thing to argue about with regards to non-service of NIPs. We don't have any case law regarding late NIPs issued by first class post. All we have is Groome v Driscoll, but that deals with recorded delivery issued NIPs - and it is the case that all scammers use to threaten people into 'fessing up.

That could be because we don’t need any case law. The law provides that the NIP must be served within fourteen days of the commission of the offence and a miss is as good as a mile.
Rob S
In an ideal world, the scammers would make sure they process the NIP's quick enough to post out so they reach the accused person in good time, even when taking into account the Christmas post.
patdavies
QUOTE (Rob S @ Mon, 8 Jan 2007 - 15:15) *
In an ideal world, the scammers would make sure they process the NIP's quick enough to post out so they reach the accused person in good time, even when taking into account the Christmas post.


In that case we must live in an ideal world - because that is exactly what they must do.

The date of the NiP is irrelevant. What was the postmark (they should allow 2 posting days from this) or can you provide convincing testimony that the NIP arrived on day 15. (although the date of the alleged offfence is day0, not day 1)
Rob S
QUOTE (patdavies @ Mon, 8 Jan 2007 - 15:22) *
QUOTE (Rob S @ Mon, 8 Jan 2007 - 15:15) *
In an ideal world, the scammers would make sure they process the NIP's quick enough to post out so they reach the accused person in good time, even when taking into account the Christmas post.


In that case we must live in an ideal world - because that is exactly what they must do.




What they must do, and what they are actually doing are 2 different things unfortunately.
Tuppytrucker
QUOTE (Mika @ Mon, 8 Jan 2007 - 13:55) *
The law provides that the NIP must be served within fourteen days of the commission of the offence



But the pertinant word is 'served'. It has been upheld in court that 'served' means, 'put in the post'.
I'll see if I can trawl back through the history of usenet to find the details. I know it to be true as it happened to a personal friend. It cost him loads of dosh in fines and lost time when an NIP took months to reach him. He went right through several court appearances and finally lost.
Mika
QUOTE (Tuppytrucker @ Mon, 8 Jan 2007 - 18:31) *
But the pertinant word is 'served'. It has been upheld in court that 'served' means, 'put in the post'.

Not so. According to the Chambers 20th Century dictionary, the word “served” means:
QUOTE
to deliver or present formally

Even I managed to explain that to Bath Magistrates’ Court.
Bluedart
QUOTE (Mika @ Mon, 8 Jan 2007 - 13:55) *
QUOTE (firefly @ Mon, 8 Jan 2007 - 13:41) *
Potentially this is the hardest thing to argue about with regards to non-service of NIPs. We don't have any case law regarding late NIPs issued by first class post. All we have is Groome v Driscoll, but that deals with recorded delivery issued NIPs - and it is the case that all scammers use to threaten people into 'fessing up.

That could be because we don’t need any case law. The law provides that the NIP must be served within fourteen days of the commission of the offence and a miss is as good as a mile.


Does the law not confirm the only acceptable method of posting?
Any other method does not require a signature, but the way the law describes the delivery does.
Automatic receipt and signature on arrival
Just 68p plus First or Second Class postage
Next working day delivery for most First Class Recorded items

If the scammers have no signature, then surely they cannot say "well I posted it, so you MUST have received it".

If I asked the question, "Was it served according to law" look in the law provides, what would they say?
andy_foster
S.7 Interpretation Act 1978

Basically, unless the relevant statute clearly indicates otherwise, proof of posting creates a rebuttable presumption of service, and service is deemed to have been effected when it would have been served in the ordinary course of the post unless and until proven otherwise.

Except where statute clearly says otherwise, proof of posting in good time creates a rebuttable presumption both that it was served and that it was served in good time. Both of these rebuttable presumptions are rebuttable by the other party given credible evidence.
In Groome v Driscoll, registered post was used and the relevant statute make the presumption irrebuttable (when registered post is used).
Mika
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 8 Jan 2007 - 21:08) *
In Groome v Driscoll, registered post was used and the relevant statute make the presumption irrebuttable (when registered post is used).

In other words, in cases relating to the Road Traffic Act 1988 where the police posted the NIP via first class post, Groome v Driscoll is completely irrelevant.
Bluedart
QUOTE
QUOTE (Mika @ Mon, 8 Jan 2007 - 22:14) *

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 8 Jan 2007 - 21:08) *
In Groome v Driscoll, registered post was used and the relevant statute make the presumption irrebuttable (when registered post is used).

In other words, in cases relating to the Road Traffic Act 1988 where the police posted the NIP via first class post, Groome v Driscoll is completely irrelevant.

QUOTE

7. Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expression "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, 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.

I think s.7 needs closer inspection.

The carrier pigeon could have been shot. So the recipient did not get the message. But if the sender could prove beyond doubt, that the pigeon arrived safely, then that would indicate that you got the message. If the law requires that the sender fulfills the fuction correctly, then what proof does the sender have that he sent it if he did not carry out that function according to law.?
Registered post and recorded delivery, both require a signature of the recipient, without that signature, what do we have.
ade-cambs
In my circumstances would the onus be on me to prove that I didn't receive the NIP until the 15th day? NIP sent First or Second Class - disposed of envelope before I found this site on the internet blush.gif

Would experienced forum members bother trying to argue that the NIP was received 1 day outside 14 days?

If I go the PACE Witness Statement route does anyone know what response I am likely to get from Bedfordshire Police? As I currently have no points on my license would you advise to just pay up and shut up? I understand that if you already have a lot of points and face a ban then it is worth fighting but in my situation am I likely to actually achieve anything with a challenge?

I would really appreciate some direct advice from experienced forum members on my specific situation - Thanks.
soft_lad
I've successfully used the 14 day defence in Bedfordshire. If you think you will appear a credible witness then I might be tempted go for the RAC letter. Using PACE and losing in the magistrates court could potentially attract larger costs than using a simple 'statutory' 14 day defence.

However, if you put your faith in the ECHR/government sorting the s.172 mess out in the next 6 months, then go for PACE.

Though arguing over one day in court may seem a bit cheeky, you can make a good case that it's still a time-expired NIP. Like Mika says a miss is as good as a mile.

If you do decide to take this to court, you will need to do some reading to be able to argue your case confidently if necessary.

This is important too:

QUOTE (patdavies @ Mon, 8 Jan 2007 - 15:22) *
(although the date of the alleged offfence is day0, not day 1)
andypandy
I thought SQL made a persuasive case in his appeal to the crown court about non/late service of nip, by being a credible witness?
civil engineer
I thought there was a success story on here somewhere relating to a late or not recieved NIP.

If I recall it all boiled down to the credibility of the accused. They could prove posting but not delivery.

Not unlike the recent Tiff Needel case in South Wales.

I'd be very interested to see exactly how they prove the posting. What is the documented process for issuing NIP's? how can they prove that it was followed? Do they have process audits?

Can evidence of this be sought??
Mika
QUOTE (civil engineer @ Tue, 9 Jan 2007 - 13:15) *
I thought there was a success story on here somewhere relating to a late or not recieved NIP.

This link will take you to one example case.
Bluedart
An ammendment to the RTOA 1988, as pointed out by FireFly some time ago.

© by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.

How can they get away with saying? "well we posted it by first class post, so you must have received it".
Even when I get my shoping from Tesco, I have to sign for it.
Mika
QUOTE (Bluedart @ Tue, 9 Jan 2007 - 15:25) *
How can they get away with saying? "well we posted it by first class post, so you must have received it".

They can’t. Well not in a proper court and Safety Camera Partnership Courts don’t count as proper courts.
firefly
There is a comprehensive analysis in the members' section which deals with this very point. In any event, andy_foster has already answered the point.

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 8 Jan 2007 - 21:08) *
S.7 Interpretation Act 1978

Basically, unless the relevant statute clearly indicates otherwise, proof of posting creates a rebuttable presumption of service, and service is deemed to have been effected when it would have been served in the ordinary course of the post unless and until proven otherwise.

Except where statute clearly says otherwise, proof of posting in good time creates a rebuttable presumption both that it was served and that it was served in good time. Both of these rebuttable presumptions are rebuttable by the other party given credible evidence.


For all of you not versed in lawyer speak, what this means (and I'm sure I'm repeating myself here) is that when a NIP is sent out, by first class post, it is presumed to have arrived through the ordinary course of post. However, the presumption of service can be disputed (rebutted) by evidence to the contrary: "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.".

So if you "prove the contrary", then there has been no service. How do you prove you didn't get something that is untraceable once it is popped into the post? You stand up in court and swear, under oath, that you didn't get it. If you have other evidence, like misdirected mail and the like, then this obviously will help in court.

QUOTE (Tuppytrucker @ Mon, 8 Jan 2007 - 18:31) *
But the pertinant word is 'served'. It has been upheld in court that 'served' means, 'put in the post'.

You are a safety partnership employee and I claim my £5. Completely incorrect, but I won't hold it against you as virtually every internet police website peddles this myth.
lojohn
I once received a NIP - it arrived two days late although it was posted the day before the 14 day limit. I wrote to the CC and informed them and my NIP was withdrawn without an argument - EXACTLY AS THEY SHOULD DO!

LJ
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2021 Invision Power Services, Inc.