One For Rogerborg and the Road Traffic Guise...

[Quornholio]

With regards to NIP, time limits, postage deemed served etc, in accordance with Interpretations Act etc.

Could Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside throw a spanner in the works of those wanting to steal monies?

[Derivative]

It strikes me that this whole '14 day' business seems incredibly arbitrary.

Why does the limit exist? Have there ever been any attempts to raise it?

[0l0dom0l0]

[Spudly]

Genuine question here, why isn't sickpup's interpretation act and so on applicable here? If they can show they have sent the document in time, then surely the driver would have no comeback?
____________________
The Old Apprentice

[stinkwheel]

NIPs are usually franked, not stamped. The franking mark has the date on it which would generally be taken to be when it was actually posted.

That's why it is important to keep the envelope.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.

[trevor saxe-coburg-gotha]

But surely an envelope with a stamp on it is franked? That's what prevents the stamp being used again. Or are we talking about different kinds of stamp here? Anyway, let's just take the example of a pre-paid envelope for a second - those may or may not be franked. I don't know. But they kind of don't need to be, because once they are opened it's difficult to re-use them. Unlike with stamped envelopes where it is possible to soak the stamp off and use it again if it hasn't been franked. However, this has actually become more difficult in recent times because stamps are now often self-adhesive and much more difficult to remove, once attached to an envelope.
____________________
"Life is a sexually transmitted disease and the mortality rate is one hundred percent."

Mobylette Type 50 ---> Raleigh Grifter ---> Neval Minsk 125

[Islander]

Franking is done at the mail originator's premises - it's passed through the franking machine which puts the franking mark on with the date and value simultaneously and can be taken as the date of posting. Mail is usually franked and collected on the same day whereas the postmark is stamped on the envelope to cancel the stamp at the sorting office and may not necessarily be the actual date of posting. For example if there's a sorting office strike or some other delay then the mail might not be postmarked for days or even weeks.

[trevor saxe-coburg-gotha]

Okay - got it.
____________________
"Life is a sexually transmitted disease and the mortality rate is one hundred percent."

Mobylette Type 50 ---> Raleigh Grifter ---> Neval Minsk 125

[J.M.]

[Rogerborg]

Cheers, that is rather surprising though.

Interpretations Act 1978 says: "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. "

However, there's a peculiar quirk in the RTOA 1988 in that is says:

"A notice required by this section to be served on any person may be served on that person—
[...]
(1) (c)by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address."

...but...

"(2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him."

Now, I wonder if the court may have misinterpreted (2) as saying that it is only deemed as served if it's registered or recorded, but that's not at all what it says. It says that it is considered served by those methods even if there's no record of delivery.

Since it was 1st class post though, none of that matters, the Interpretations Act should have kicked in and it should have been considered served irrespective of any bawwwing about a "postal strike". Because if this chap can say "Sure I got it but it was late and you can't prove otherwise" then why couldn't anyone argue exactly that? Or better, "Never got it, so wasn't served."

tl;dr - good news, but I think it was badly bungled by the Clown Prosecution Service and that court, and I wouldn't expect it to stand.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike

[Quornholio]

I may have grasped the wrong end of the nettle here, but I was under the impression EWHC = England and Wales High Court?

If so, not your typical magistrates cock up.

[ficedula]

I'd've thought the key part was:

[Rogerborg]

I have no idea how you'd provide proof that an unrecorded letter was delivered at any particular time.

By bungled I mean that I expect the chap paid for a solicitor to slip that claim in among some fancy 4 syllable words and the CPS paper shuffler got all confuddled and missed their chance to refute it.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike