Speeding notice next steps

[Speednotspeed]

I’ll try to be brief but full factual.

Dh and ds work for the same company. They’ve both had an NIP regarding a speeding offence. They both have separate letters to complete to say who was driving. They drive between 500 and 1000+ miles per week. Neither knows who drove on this day, both have checked their phones to see if they were texting etc (meaning they weren’t the driver) - nothing they can find to work out who was driving.

Just wondering the legalities and next steps. Dh will ring the police in the next couple of days for further information.

Offence date 24.4.24
Dh NIP dated 21.6.24, arrived 22.6.24
Ds NIP dated 21.6.24, arrived today, 25.6.24
Both received a reminder letter yesterday, 24.6.24 saying they had to complete and return the NIP.
NIP says the speed they were doing (59) and on what road, but not what the limit is on that road, or by how much they were speeding. I’ve googled and the road is a 70 but currently has yellow average speed check cameras, I’m assuming it’s a 50. We’re assuming we’ve googled the correct road.

Dh has asked work to confirm what date is on the initial letter, as if it’s after 14 days from the offence I understand it’s not enforceable?

So, not trying to get out of the speeding charge, just want to know legalities and ensure dh/ds are dealt with correctly.

Is it best/reasonable for dh to ring the police and ask for a copy of the original letter that would have gone to the company so he can check the date, ask what the limit is on the road of the offence, tell them as it’s 2 months previous he doesn’t not know who was driving and can only confirm he was in the vehicle? I’m hoping they have a photo as that will clear it all up. Should he ask this?

Any other help and advice much appreciated.

just adding this again, in case anyone can shed any light… so if work sent in the possible driver details after the 28 day deadline, are these NIP’s enforceable? Is that another possible admin error?

the nips are enforceable. It’s very rare for a police force to only send one nip because of the postal service and with the % of mail that goes missing people can easily argue non receipt as a defence. So quite often responses are received after the 28 day window. You’d be surprised how many people who claim never to have received anything but amazingly they always get the summons.

The goods vehicle limit of 50 on single carriageways applies to pretty much any van but with an exception for 'car derived vans' with a max gross weight under 2 tonnes:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/car-derived-vans-and-dual-purpose-vehicles/car-derived-vans-and-dual-purpose-vehicles

I think the 2 tonne limit and the term 'car derived vans' go back to the era of the Ford Anglia or even before. Our car is a Citroen Berlingo Multispace. While the original Berlingo was clearly based on the Peugeot 306 ours is considerably bigger and max GW is north of 2 tonnes. As a car the limit is 60 on single carriageways and 70 on duals and M/ways.

The self same model as a van would be subject to goods vehicle limits. Other versions, assuming the fact the platform counts car derived, would creep below 2 tonnes and be subject to the car derived limit.

It's a mess and needs urgent reform.

Update - I’ve not rang police today as I’ve been ill all day. However, work has sent through the NIP they received and it is indeed dates 31 May! So that’s 37 days after the offence!

@Cattery so when we ring the police, do we just straight out ask for it to be quashed due to the date? Or do we ask why it took so long when it must be within 14 days? Don’t want to get their backs up

Hi. Just ask them to read out the dates/timeline. You’re entitled to ask that. They’ll call up the offence and give you the dates of what was sent to whom and when.

Confirm with the company if it was in fact the REMINDER that was dated 31 May x

Are you sure that firstly like @Cattery says it’s not a reminder. Secondly that the company does own the vehicle as I’ve know lease companies get the first NIP they name the business who then name the driver and before you know it half of the six months prosecuting window is gone. It’s highly unlikely that the initial NIP was late, although it does happen. I suspect the innocent one of the named drivers genuinely doesn’t know but the speeding driver does but is trying to get away with it, this could work out for them or both might get prosecuted for failing to name the driver which carries a harsher penalty.

Company definitely owns the vehicle, not a lease. Company sent us a copy of the notice and it doesn’t say ‘reminder’, it looks exactly like ours but obviously with their address. 🤷🏻‍♀️

We’ll ask for the timeline when we ring.

As for the drivers, as I said upthread .. this was more than 8 weeks ago, they’ve driven between 6000 and 8000 miles in that time. Could anyone remember that far back? (Without a log, which they are now keeping).

Hi @Speednotspeed I've been thinking of you/your husband today as I drive past a speed van faster than I should 🤦🏾‍♀️ any news?

Few questions which are for nothing more than my own nosiness - does his company have a fleet team? Why are they not requesting/ensuring drivers log if they share and why are they not training employees about the legal requirements for appropriate vehicles? I'd say there is lack of a duty of care there. Easy for someone not to know the connect is not able to be driven at the same speed. I'm not saying he should use it to get off but I'd be pissed off. We have to do loads to ensure we aren't maniacs.

@CommeUneVacheEspagnole I agree to some extent .. but I guess ultimately it’s the drivers responsibility to know the limits for the vehicle they’re driving - lesson learned in that regard! When chatting at work, no other driver (or bosses for that matter) knew the lower limit restrictions on the small vans. They do now. Dh and ds keep a diary log now so at least they’re looking after themselves that way.

UPDATE - We eventually found evidence of the driver - dh. Literally, 1 message in a group chat - his reply was ‘sent by Siri’ .. ds was sent normal txt. So dh must have been driving as his reply was sent through van messaging system. Also, finally got through to the police today, they were lovely, very helpful, however NIP is valid and still stands - fair enough. Apparently the original NIP was sent the day after the offence, which is what makes it lawful. The van is either on finance/lease as that’s where the original notice went. They then sent back to police that company was the owner/driver, company then in turn sent with dh and ds as possible drivers. Police said both were then sent a notice as both had been named as possible drivers. So paperwork is ready to send off, we’ll now await his speed awareness course letter, which is what police said it should be. I was cheeky and asked outright if it could be quashed due to the time we received it, but they said not unfortunately, as time limits were adhered to. No harm in asking 😁😁

So contrary to earlier info effect of lease or finance meant NIP#1, the one the time limit for service applies to, went to lessor/lender. They named employer who, in turn, named DH/DS.

On that basis it makes sense.

Full marks to whoever sussed the clue with Siri!!

That’s correct @Bromptotoo .. we thought the company owned the van outright, but clearly not.

Honesly, the Siri thing took ages to find! There’s so many work group chats for various departments/jobs/info etc, all employees are part of each group, there can be hundreds of messages each day, so going through them all was a nightmare! But, it led to the truth and that’s all that matters! We’re all just happy it’s resolved in the correct, legal way.

@Speednotspeed Hi. Glad you got it all sorted. Just to add, at the Met only one possible driver can be nominated at a time so I’m still confused as to how both your dh and ds were both entered as nominated drivers at the same time on the same record x

Just checked with a friend who still works there. One nomination at a time only despite how many possible drivers the company gives. Two possible drivers cannot be entered at the same time for the same alleged offence

I’ve honestly no idea, but that’s exactly how it’s happened, I don’t even know if that’s grounds for it being quashed? They were lovely on the phone, but I did tell them I’d still put in a covering letter with the returned NIP’s with my queries/observations .. in the hope they’ll drop them 😄😄 .. If not, so be it. Oh, and they confirmed it is a 60 road, but as it’s a goods vehicle (albeit small) they’re restricted to 50 - so others beware, the cameras are set up to look at individual vehicles not just generic speed.

You had me doubting myself that’s why I checked with my friend who still works in the camera unit. F knows what they’ve done. You can’t enter more than one nomination in a kind of scattergun approach. I’d ask to speak to the manager of the unit. Sounds like this should be cancelled x

Having sent hundreds maybe even thousands of NIPs over a 10 year period, if a company ever came back to us naming more than one driver as they weren’t sure then we would send a new NIP to each nominated driver. If no one confirmed themselves as the driver we would go back to the company as they technically hadn’t named the driver so the company would be prosecuted.

We def didn’t do that at the Met. One entry on a record at a time. There wasn’t the facility to add more than one in a single transaction.

Full disclosure @Cattery, I primarily dealt with RTC files with a few speeding and other traffic offences thrown in.

Ah right @UnpackingBooksFromBoxes I worked solely on speed and red light offences through to prosecution. I’m wondering if some police forces have different ways of working to others but I simply can’t see how that could be possible as the NIPS are issued under section 172 of the road traffic act 🤷‍♀️

Quick update in case anyone is still following. Dh received his letter yesterday, offered a speed awareness course, which he is obviously choosing to do. No mention of the covering letter we sent querying the validity of the NIP, given that 2 were sent out to different people at the same time. I would have thought they’d acknowledge the letter at least, but no, just the standard letter and forms after admitting his was the driver.

@Cattery Dh has received a letter this morning in response to his covering letter querying the validity of the 2 NIP’s sent together - they’ve said as both were named as possible drivers, both were sent a NIP 🤷‍♀️

Well I’ve never heard the like @Speednotspeed You cannot nominated two people at the same time. How will that work going forward. One completes the admission (addressed to him) and the other either ignores or completes the OTHER form with a nomination of the driver which will be the person who has completed the admission. They are definitely wrong but I don’t see what you can do to rectify this going forward. It’s def an admin mistake but I can’t work out how it could have happened.
As you’ve said previously keeping a log of who is driving at any time is a good idea. This one has left me baffled x

That’s exactly what I thought .. suppose they weren’t father and son, so colleagues at different addresses - suppose both filled in saying they were the driver (thinking they were) - or 1 admitted it, other one filled in giving 1st ones details - would the NIP then be replicated??
I wonder if they know they’ve messed up but won’t retract or say so, as she has given his details saying it was him 🤔
Another separate NIP did come through - luckily due to the new log system it was easy to show eh didn’t have the van that week, another driver had it. So big thank you again to @CommeUneVacheEspagnole and others who suggested the log system!