Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) Not Received - Client Acquitted

Author: Frank Rogers  

Date Published: March 8, 2024

We are all painfully aware of the problems engulfing Royal Mail, which includes late or non-delivery. Recently, I successfully acted for a client who was charged under section 172(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

This section states it is an offence for the 'keeper' of a vehicle to fail to provide information about the driver's identity where that driver is alleged to have committed an offence. In my client’s case, he never received the original posted NIP that stated he had to name the driver.

My client was a company director with nine points on his licence but had never been disqualified from driving.

He frequently made short trips for business purposes. While away, his partner, who lived at a separate address, periodically went to his home to collect his mail. On 7 August, when my client was travelling for business, his partner, who was insured to drive his car, used it to visit friends. She was caught driving at 38mph in a 30mph zone.

The police duly posted a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP).

My client stated that his partner visited his house two to three times from the end of June until August to collect mail. She never noticed an NIP addressed to my client.

On her last visit to the house, my client's partner collected the mail, which included bills, bank statements, and a reminder letter from the police with a duplicate of the original NIP.

The next day, my client filled in the NIP and posted it first class to the police. This was 11 days after the compliance period for sending the information had expired. The police acknowledged in their evidence that the NIP was received. However, my client shortly obtained a letter from the police stating that the matter was no longer within their jurisdiction.

My client was charged under section 172(2) and appeared in the Magistrates' Court.

Section 172(2) states:

Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—

(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police [or the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force], and

(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

Notably, a defence is available under section 172(7)(b):

The person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it.

In my client's case, he gave evidence that neither he nor his partner received the original NIP, and as soon as he spotted the reminder in the post collected by his partner, he immediately filled it in and posted it first class.

In my client's defence, I argued that the case of Purnell v Snaresbrook Crown Court – High Court 30.03.2011 applied. In this case, Mr Purnell was the owner of a car registered to a property he rented to a tenant with whom he had an arrangement to open his mail. When he was caught speeding, NIPs were posted to the address. Mr Purnell stated that the NIPs were never received.

The Magistrates' Court convicted Mr Purnell, who subsequently appealed to the Crown Court who dismissed the appeal on the grounds that when an address is provided, a driver must be available at that address to receive communications, including NIPs. However, the High Court subsequently stated that no such duty existed and sent the matter back to the Crown Court for reconsideration.

In my client's case, as soon as he received the reminder and duplicate NIP, he acted with speed to comply with its instructions and named his partner as the driver on the day the speeding offence was committed.

The Magistrates' Court agreed and acquitted my client, who escaped a potential disqualification due to the totting up of points on his licence.

Related case studies: NIP not received, client acquitted | Pleaded not guilty to drink driving | Careless Driving Charge Dismissed Before Trial | Client with 12 points leaves court without a driving ban | Totting up case study: Successfully argued exceptional hardship

Like others featured on my website, this case study demonstrates the value of instructing an experienced Motoring Offences Solicitor. I understand the Road Traffic Act 1988 and court procedures. This ensures I can provide my clients a robust defence and protect their best interests.

To find out how I can assist you if you are facing disqualification due to totting up or failing to name the driver of a car, please call me on 0151 601 3743 for a no obligation free quote.