Free NIP Speeding Response Template

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write in response to the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) issued by Metropolitan Police under reference MPS-NIP-26-0184-7711, in respect of an alleged speeding offence under section 89 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 said to have been committed on 23 May 2026 involving vehicle LK22 PMB (Volkswagen Golf 1.5 TSI). This letter acknowledges the NIP, identifies the driver as required by section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and states my position on the proposed disposal.

I confirm that I was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

I acknowledge service of the NIP on 29 May 2026. The 14-day statutory window under section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (counted by ignoring the day of the offence) expired on 6 June 2026. My position on the proposed prosecution is:

I admit the offence and ask the police to consider offering a National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme (NDORS) Speed Awareness Course as an alternative to a Fixed Penalty, on the basis that I have not attended such a course in the preceding three years and the reading falls within the standard course-offer threshold.

Under section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 a NIP must be served on the driver or on the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the offence within 14 days of the commission of the alleged offence. The 14 days are counted by ignoring the day of the offence; time runs out at midnight on the 14th day. The notice must specify the nature of the offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed. A defective notice (whether by late service, wrong addressee or insufficient particulars) is not a bar to prosecution where the prosecutor can show that, with reasonable diligence, the keeper or driver could not have been identified in time (section 2(3)), but the burden is on the prosecution.

(A) Late service. The alleged offence is said to have been committed on 23 May 2026. The 14-day statutory window under section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 — counted by ignoring 23 May — expired at midnight on 6 June 2026. The NIP enclosed bears a posted date of 29 May 2026, and was received by me on 29 May 2026 in the ordinary course of post; that is within the window, and I do not pursue a late-service point on these facts. I reserve my position if the police later assert a different posting date.

(B) Addressee. The NIP is correctly addressed to me as the registered keeper at the time of the offence, at the address recorded by the DVLA (23 Beechcroft Avenue, New Malden KT3 3JZ). No Mortimer v Cobb point arises.

(C) Particulars of the offence. The NIP states the nature of the offence (exceeding a 40 mph limit), the time (14:42 on 23 May 2026), and the place (A3 northbound between Robin Hood Way and Roehampton Vale junction). Those particulars are sufficient for section 1 purposes.

(D) Postal service and presumption. I confirm receipt of the NIP on 29 May 2026 by ordinary post. If the police later rely on a presumption of service for a different envelope, I reserve the position under Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside [2009] EWHC 2924 (Admin) and Duncan v Crocker [1969] 1 WLR 171 that a notice not actually received within the window is not validly served and that good cause for late service must be evidenced on the prosecution side.

The duty to identify the driver under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is separate from, and continues alongside, the NIP. Failure to provide driver details within the 28-day window carries 6 penalty points and a fine of up to £1,000, subject to the section 172(4) reasonable diligence defence. The scenario chosen above is amplified here so that the police can process the response without further correspondence.

(A) Scenario detail. I was the driver at the date and time alleged. I was returning to my home in New Malden from a client meeting in Wandsworth and was alone in the vehicle. I confirm the position under s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

(B) Multiple drivers / shared use. My partner is the only other insured driver on the policy. He was at work in Croydon at 14:42 on 23 May 2026 (a meeting recorded in his Outlook diary, which I have inspected). No diligence question therefore arises.

(C) Company / pool vehicle policy. Not applicable — the vehicle is privately owned and insured for social, domestic, pleasure and commuting use only.

A speeding prosecution must be supported by speed-measurement evidence of a kind admissible in evidence — under section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 a device of an approved description, used in an approved manner, is admissible as evidence of the speed. The device must hold a current Home Office Type Approval (HOTA) and be operated within the manufacturer's and force calibration framework.

(A) Device type. The NIP records a measurement by a mobile / hand-held laser device. Each device class has its own approval, calibration and operating regime; my position is below.

(B) Calibration position. The NIP records a speed of 47 mph measured by a mobile / hand-held laser device. I ask the police to confirm: (i) the device serial number; (ii) the last calibration certificate prior to 23 May 2026 and the next scheduled calibration date; (iii) any operational fault log entry for the device on or around 23 May 2026; and (iv) the start-of-shift and end-of-shift zero-and-target check entries for the deploying officer.

(C) Type Approval position. I ask the police to confirm: (i) the Home Office Type Approval (HOTA) reference for the specific device model used; (ii) that the device was used in the approved manner — clear line of sight, defined target, vehicle moving towards or away from the device, no slow-pan; and (iii) the deploying officer's NDORS / force operator training certificate.

(D) Disclosure request. Under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and the Disclosure Code I request: (a) the primary speed-measurement record (photograph, video clip or device log); (b) the device calibration and HOTA certificates; (c) the operator's training certificate and statement; (d) the operational fault log entries for 23 May 2026; and (e) any contemporaneous notes of the officer that bear on the measurement of vehicle LK22 PMB.

The standard disposal options for a speeding case suitable for out-of-court resolution are a National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme (NDORS) Speed Awareness Course or a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty under sections 51-52 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. A Speed Awareness Course discharges the matter with no points, no fine and no conviction; the Conditional Offer carries a fixed £100 fine and three penalty points. If neither is accepted, or if the matter is unsuitable for out-of-court disposal, the case proceeds to the magistrates' court.

(A) Course eligibility. The recorded speed (47 mph in a 40 mph limit, 7 mph over) falls within the standard NDORS Speed Awareness Course threshold (typically ten per cent plus 2 mph to ten per cent plus 9 mph of the limit). I confirm that I have not attended a Speed Awareness Course in the preceding three years (last full clean MOT and licence search shows no NDORS attendance). I therefore ask that, where eligibility applies, I be offered a Speed Awareness Course in preference to a Conditional Offer.

(B) Conditional Offer position. If a course is unavailable or refused, I am willing to accept the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty (£100 plus three penalty points) under sections 51-52 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 rather than proceed to a contested hearing.

(C) Course vs court reasoning. A Speed Awareness Course is preferable to either disposal here: it discharges the matter without an endorsement, the educational outcome is consistent with the public interest, and the cost (£79-£100) is comparable to the Fixed Penalty. A contested hearing is not warranted on the present facts — the position is one of mitigation, not denial.

The best way to contact me is at the address or email address at the head of this letter. My driving licence number is PEMBE901041HR9AB. I understand that the personal data in this response will be processed by Metropolitan Police under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 for the purposes of investigating and prosecuting the alleged offence.

YOURS FAITHFULLY,