Hi Everyone,

I need some advice on the issue below, i'll give as much detail as i can.

I have a company car. Email recieved from HR on 24th of April, caught speeding, Date of offence - 16/04/12. The NIP was addressed to the company

M42/M6 Toll- exceeding the 60mph variable limit - i was doing 72mph.(Warwickshire Police)

HR completed NIP, and CORRECTLY entered my details, completed and sent off on the 24th of April 2012. (they emailed me a PDF copy of it)

I recieve the NIP on the 28th of April. 1st class post

They addressed it to a John ******, i am a Joseph. Therefore the NIP has been incorrectly entered to someone of the wrong name and therefore not living at this address.



What are my options?

Whats the likely out come if i have to accept it?



many thanks

The mistake is of no consequence, at that speed you should be offered a speed awareness course if you are eligible.

Surely its of consequence, the person does not exist! nor does he reside at this address, and evidently the letter will need to be returned to sender?

perhaps i'm wrong, but i can't open the mail nor responds to it

Well, you COULD send it back, marked 'not known at this address',... but that is a pretty certain way to end up with a 'Failure to Furnish Details' summons, with a 6 point penalty, big fine, and 5 years worth of insurance hikes/hassle.....

You can play silly buggars if you like and send it back, they will then go back to your company and you will receive a NIP in the correct name but the likelihood of being offered a speed awareness course will be diminishing by the day so you will likely end up with 3 points and a fine, the smart thing to do is not mess around and take the SAC if you have not done one in the last 3 years.

Do you have an authority for your assertion? Unless you are suggesting that the OP has provided sufficient detail for any watching scameratti to identify his case and rectify the error?

Joe

You could send it back as not known at the address. As has been said enquiries will be made and you will probably get another on in your correct name. Given the offence was just over a week ago there is little chance of a time out.

At the speeds quoted you should be eligible for a SAC. As previously stated if you do delay then the offer of a SAC may go. In some Forces they require the course to be accepted within 4 to 8 weeks and the course attended prior to the 4 month mark. SACs are also discretionary and some SCP's will not offer them if they believe the driver is wriggling.

Your call.

The OP's under no obligation to open post not addressed to him. Neither is he under any obligation to second-guess who it's really addressed to.

If he hadn't been advised by HR to expect the form, he could reasonably assume that it's been sent to Joseph X but at the wrong address. In such a situation "return to sender" is the perfectly correct course of action.

If he isn't bothered about 3 points then he can "return to sender". The police will have to correct the mistake themselves and send a new request. Much too early for the offence to time out.

If he's going to go down this route he should do it quickly so it doesn't look like he's playing games. He should also hand it over at a post office rather than put it in the letter box. That way there's a witness if they don't receive it.

If he wants to ensure a course then the mrh3369 advice should be followed.

Silly question (maybe). Is the envelope externally marked to identify it as a NIP?

When Baby Gan got her's, the only indication apart from the police logo was a post code that Google revealed as the Thames Valley camera or fixed penalty unit (can't remember which)

Ok, a Police logo is probably a good indication...

And also a good reason to return a wrongly addressed letter rather than bin it

Agreed. Trying to avoid the inevitable is likely to backfire. If the FP/SAC route fails the summons is more likely to succeed...

The OP should return the letter unopened at a post office without delay. The police then have time to issue the S172 in the correct name.

He hasn't committed any S172 offence because it wasn't addressed to him and by acting quickly they can't argue that he's been evasive.

If the police are slow, the corrected S172 and reply cycle may not allow time to issue a COFP and they could go straight to summons.

The OP can plead Guilty and request the normal £60/3 points that he would have received if the police hadn't made mistakes with the administration

have a company car. Email recieved from HR on 24th of April, caught speeding, Date of offence - 16/04/12. The NIP was addressed to the company

By returning it as not known, they will return to the RK to ascertain who was driving, inevitably leading back to the OP, now, the question is, does he need to upset his employers? OPs call.

Would the police first compare what they sent with the information provided by the company ?

The OP can warn HR that a letter with a police logo arrived but it had the wrong name so he sent it back unopened. In case the police contact them again this is why.

Indeed, it's just down to the HR attitude to whether they say OK that's fine or why are you peeing about & giving us extra work. I'm not looking at this from a purely legal viewpoint, more from the OPs relationship with his HR department & their attitude to him if he does take that route.

Logically, it would seem that the notice addressed to John has either been lawfully served on Joseph or it hasn't. I suspect that it hasn't.

If the notice has been served on Joseph, he is under a statutory obligation to provide the drivers' details. If it hasn't he is not under an obligation to do anything. If he does nothing, eventually a summons is likely to be issued for John's alleged failure to provide information. By this time it is likely to be too late for them to do anything unless the current NIP/s. 172 addressed to John is deemed to have been served on Joseph.

I think a key question is; has the OP opened the NIP/s172?

If he has not then IMHO it is (probably) not served.

If he has then I think that there is a strong argument that it contains details of an offence he is aware of and contains his correct surname and address and relates to a vehicle he was driving at the time and place of the offence he knows about.

Ultimately the OP is likely in line for a SAC so any strategies designed to get a NG, be it a time out or failed s172 prosecution, is a very high risk. Only the OP knows if it is worth the risk.

Hi there,

thanks for all your replies,

i'm not simply tring to get off this, i just think if the authority have been given the correct information then the least they can do is replicate it correctly.

The letter remains here unopened, and i won't open it. If i ignore it then ultimately they will persue me with further letters and court action - accept John is the man they will be chasing - My HR department will simply re-provide the details initially given in the first place.

so if i ignore it,then John is in trouble, if i open it then i can provide what is needed. Although i'm sure there is a law about opening mail not addressed to you!

the info provided by HR was done so correctly and perfectly,inc my middle name

so what do i do? i won't open the letter, so how can Joseph have been deemed to have been served with the notice!!!

Do what is best for the best outcome which is a SAC, that's no points on your licence, the chance of this going away are minuscule so my advice is do what gets the best outcome for you.

+1

+2....You cant have it both ways,... If it is incorrect for you to open the letter, then, but the same set of standards, it is correct for you to return it 'not known at this address',... which will (I suspect) instigate further investigation, and possibly a NIP in your correct name, but too late for an SAC course,...... as said previously, your call......

Shame you are not the RK,... I suspect you could have ended up with a NIP served out of time, if that was the case.....

{P.S.,, I can tell you [as a postal worker], if the envelope does not have a clear return address on, and you stick it in a post box marked 'not known at this address', it will be forwarded to a clearing centre in Belfast, (dont ask!!!) where it will be opened, to try to decide where to return it to, which could take a while, and harm your chances of a SAC.......)

Cheers, Good Luck, Fred

Is the recipient of incorrectly addressed mail under an actual obligation to return it to sender as opposed to just binning it?

Wrong Name on Mail

I suspect you may be right, and there is no legal obligation to do anything, (other than NOT open it!!) but to argue it was not served, and you didnt return it wouldn't help your case.....
But the Post Office is such a mess at the mo, it may very well not get back, even if you do stick it in a box!!!!!!

You can bet, if you bin it, forget it, or 'file' it, it wont go away,...

I will say, I wonder (one of Andy Foster's oft posted comments, I think.....!!) as his company have already made one valid reply to a 172 request, would they have to reply to a second, follow up request????

will watch thread with interest,

Cheers, Fred

From Findlaw.co.uk

Under the Postal Services Act 2000:

“A person commits an offence if he, without reasonable excuse, intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or intentionally opens a mail bag.”

“A person commits an offence if intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.”

This, in essence, means that if you deliberately intercept, throw away or open somebody else’s post you are likely to be breaking the law.

Fine not exceeding Level 5 scale or six months imprisonment

The official Post Office advice for mis-delivered mail is to put a ring around the correct address or write the correct address if known and put it back in the post. Otherwise mark "Not at this address, return to sender"

Even though the OP believes the letter probably is intended for him, sending it back unopened is a perfectly good response and safer than ignoring it completely. As per my previous post, I would return it via a post office rather than simply putting it in a letterbox.

Is this item of post still in the course of transmission?

hi,



it currently sits on my desk awaiting its next destination

I think you'll find that SP's point was that it's not in transmission now it's arrived (at the correct address). So, it's stick or twist time. Either open it and furnish the correct details or return it as 'not known'. Doing nothing is likely to be hassle but it may, just may, give an out.

Persoanlly I would do nothing, it's not addressed to you, the law requires you to do nothing with it. If the Scammers fowllow the normal route, 'you' would get a reminder and then a summons, when the summons arrive you can then return THAT to the courts 'not known at this address', they can't then summons someone else 9the real you) from the same information and by then it will likely all have timed (passed the 6 months from alleged offence date) out before they realise they 'should have gone to specsavers'.

Anyone want to bet they couldn't read the writing on the response from HR and opted for the most common name beginning with J when logging it into the system?

The HR response was written in Black,block capital letters and was as clear as day to read -R also included my middle name which they also failed to include on the letter



not sure what to do now - its a matter of principle more than anything else

Just be careful your "principles" dont see you all the way into court.

I dont understand the matter of principles...you dont deny speeding, your principle is you shouldnt bother responding beause they wrote the wrong first name on the form...even though you know its for you and what its about? What is the principle?




+1.

Joe

This is simple. Return it or ignore it and there is a very small chance you may walk away with no penalty, it is more likely you will however end up with a COFP or a summons for speeding or FTF. Replying quickly will probably get you a SAC.

If this is a matter of principle I don't suppose the principle of you know you did it and taking responsibility is one you go with.

The principle is that even if the OP did wrong, the Police are expected to do their job properly, personally I think the ignore it approach has a good chance of success, by the time they found they got it wrong it will be timed out, they have only some person who's name is 'similar' to the OP's to prosecute, how the court could decide that changing the person they want to prosecute under the slip rule is possible would be beyond me!

And what could they prosecute for ?

Not an S172 because it wasn't sent in his name
Not the speeding because they won't have a confirmation that he was driving

The dilemma is what the OP should physically do with the letter - if he keeps it, it shows that he knows what it contains; if he throws it away - it's his evidence that the name was wrong and if he returns it he alerts the police to the problem.

He could show it to some friends who can later confirm that a letter arrived with the wrong name.

If it comes to an S172 charge, the evidence pack should include the original letter and he can point to the prosecution's own evidence supporting his defence.

I suspect Lord Loki would like the OP to take a very clean copy of the envelope - showing the name and address clearly. Then write "John Doe not known at this address" and put it back in the letter box (or post office). If they get around to responding with a correctly addressed NIP then the OP can proceed as normal. If the ticket tubbies decide the case should be prosecuted for failure to furnish - then the OP can attempt to explore the law surrounding a wrongly styled/addressed NIP. The case IMHO would be arguable but would probably need to be ventilated in a crown court or high court on appeal to be considered fully/correctly.

As has been said above the OP might attract a SAC or a simple CoFP - both of which would be cheaper/easier to deal with than a court appearance and a possible risk of 6 points and a big fine (and the insurance company getting upset). Some people like an easy life..... others are prepared to take it head on. So, is the OP a man or a mouse?

Could this thread be used against the op as he clearly knows what offence is alleged and also the contents of the yet unopened envelope, would this be enough to argue the s172 as served?

No....I would bin the letter, if the scammers can't produce a copy, no case to answer, if they can it proves the OP has no case to answer.....the fact the OP admits getting mail for someone else is irrelevant.

Sending it back risks them checking, spotting the mistake and correcting it in time to issue a fresh S172.

...in another universe, far far away.

While the police might (after some effort) be able to deduce the IP address of the person making the submission, they would find it next to impossible to prove who was typing on the keyboard. And the OP is NOT supposed to second guess the police intentions. If they address a letter to John Doe and not Joseph Doe why should the OP react? There seems to be no legal obligation to do so - or to be a mind reader!

What's emerging is that there is no "right" answer for the OP

#1 He can play safe and reply to the letter with a corrected name. The result will probably be a SAC
#2 He can return it unopened. The delay means that the SAC offer will probably be gone but the worst outcome is £60/3 points
#3 He can ignore it. Depending on the police efficiency they may investigate send a corrected form = £60/3 points. If not they will go for an FTF that the OP can defend but will cost him time and inconvenience.

How the OP plays it is down to his own attitudes to risk, effort and reward

Now I'm looking at the options together I'm not sure what I would do myself. I'm leaning toward #3 but would "return to sender" any court papers in the wrong name.

I agree, it's likely the OP won't even end up in court, after all there probably won't be any summons in HIS name.

The more I think about it I agree. The only time the OP needs to react is if something arrives with his correct name on.

If this is a NIP/S172 then he'll need to react. If it's a court summons then it will be hassle but he can probably get the case dropped in advance.

Everything else can be ignored.

Not sure I agree, when the summons arrives it needs to be returned UNOPENED (if possible) as "not known this address".

+1

Only if it arrives with the correct name on, otherwise return it...

Eh, no it will still likely be the incorrect name, why would it have changed, if they have magicly corrected it he needs to open it! Please keep up at the back!

If it's correct he can't return it not known this address can he?

I'm keeping up It's likely further comms will be in the wrong name but they might realise at some point and correct it... But the OP has already stated he won't ignore correctly addressed mail anyway. But I think we agree that the OP does nothing and then waits to see what happens next.

I can't see how it will take an additional 4 or 5 months for it to be realised the first name is wrong. Once the "not known" letter is received a quick phone call to the company HR to check the details will likely show the wrong first name used.

I think SD has already given an indication that as SAC are discretionary they may not offer one if it looks as if the recipient is being difficult or it goes passed a certain date. The OP should decide if they are bothered about the points because the chance of an SAC is likely to slip away and that's most likely what they will be left with.

That's why several of us think that doing nothing is a better option

If the OP's got to lose a day out of his life, which will be more satisfying - biting his tongue while he's told how 72 mph on a motorway could have caused Armageddon, or pointing out to the CPS that none of the paperwork in their evidence pack was addressed to him ?