Can you track an MOT location without the VIN / V5 doc number?

[CXRAndy]

No.

The purpose of a NIP is to warn the recipient that they may be prosecuted for an offence they could be unaware of committing (e.g. speeding). In this case the driver crashed through a wall, so is not in a position to claim they were unaware of the event which could lead to prosecution.

Attached to NIP is always a section 172.

This requires under the road traffic act to notify the police who the driver was at the time of alleged offence within 28 days of receiving NIP/172.

S172/NIP must be served within 14 days of alleged offences

 

[glasgowcyclist]

A NIP is not required in this case.

No it isn't.

A NIP is for any offence where the suspect has not been told in person they may be prosecuted.
S172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

172Duty to give information as to identity of driver etc in certain circumstances.​

(1)This section applies—

(a)to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except—

(i)an offence under Part V, or

(ii)an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 96 or 120,

and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,

(b)to any offence under sections 25, 26 or 27 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988,

(c)to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads, F2. . . and

(d)to manslaughter, or in Scotland culpable homicide, by the driver of a motor vehicle.

Section1 of the RTOA1988 sets out that a person cannot be convicted of a relevant offence unless a NIP has been issued within the relevant timescale.

Section 2 of that act is the one that is relevant here and it states:

Requirement of warning etc: supplementary. ​

(1)The requirement of section 1(1) of this Act does not apply in relation to an offence if, at the time of the offence or immediately after it, an accident occurs owing to the presence on a road of the vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed.​

So, it is quite clear that no NIP is needed for the example in this thread.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Attached to NIP is always a section 172.

This requires under the road traffic act to notify the police who the driver was at the time of alleged offence within 28 days of receiving NIP/172.

S172/NIP must be served within 14 days of alleged offences

See my post above. NIP is not required in the event of a collision.

 

[presta]

When the guy who knocked me off my bike moved house without paying for the damage, I got his insurance details from the police (Tesco, who paid up without fuss).

 

[Alex321]

A NIP is not required in this case.


Section1 of the RTOA1988 sets out that a person cannot be convicted of a relevant offence unless a NIP has been issued within the relevant timescale.

Section 2 of that act is the one that is relevant here and it states:

Requirement of warning etc: supplementary. ​

(1)The requirement of section 1(1) of this Act does not apply in relation to an offence if, at the time of the offence or immediately after it, an accident occurs owing to the presence on a road of the vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed.​

So, it is quite clear that no NIP is needed for the example in this thread.

Not required in order for prosecution to follow. But that does not mean one cannot be issued, and in this case I would expect one to be.

Actually, thinking about it, a S172 notice is not technically the same as a NIP, although it does also usually include the required information for one. It is the S172 notice I would expect to be issued.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

in this case I would expect one to be.

Why?!

 

[T4tomo]

I don't think there is much point continuing to Nitpick about NIPs and their numbers. Not really relevant. just accept that sommeone on the internet has a different view on something and move on.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I don't think there is much point continuing to Nitpick about NIPs and their numbers. Not really relevant. just accept that sommeone on the internet has a different view on something and move on.

Fair enough. 👍

 

[CXRAndy]

Not required in order for prosecution to follow. But that does not mean one cannot be issued, and in this case I would expect one to be.

Actually, thinking about it, a S172 notice is not technically the same as a NIP, although it does also usually include the required information for one. It is the S172 notice I would expect to be issued.

That's why the two are pretty much always attached on the same document.

 

[stephec]

Have a stroll round the local body shops and see if you can find a banana shaped BMW anywhere.

 

[stephec]

I don't think there is much point continuing to Nitpick about NIPs and their numbers. Not really relevant. just accept that sommeone on the internet has a different view on something and move on.

Easy for you to say. 😂

 

[Drago]

Has anyone mentioned NIPs?

 

[stephec]

Has anyone mentioned NIPs?

It's not that cold yet.

 

[biggs682]

Has anyone mentioned NIPs?

We normally put our sprouts on first then the roast potatoes followed by the roast nips