Indeed they may have. But you will be required to submit them again when you accept the fixed penalty. The instructions will be with the offer. It's up to you whether you want to ignore those instructions or say something like "you already have them." But if you do, the offer will be withdrawn and your case will move to court action where, as I said, the cost will be considerably greater. It's your choice but I mentioned it so as to avoid you any further trouble. Believe me, I know about these things.

They are no doing what they like; they are doing what they have to. Whoever is to blame for this makes no difference. It could be 100% down to the ticket office (though it isn't) and they would still not offer you a course. They must begin a prosecution in June (which is their only alternative if you fail to complete the course). They are not sitting in their office with just your case before them, eagerly awaiting your completion of the course (or not) so that they can either close your case or prosecute you. They have a system which is designed to keep all the (many) cases they have moving. As I said, you have been lucky. The normal reaction when they receive an unsigned response is to go straight to prosecution. It's unfortunate that you have been on the wrong end of this but it emphasises the need to get everything absolutely right first time when dealing with such matters (hence my warning to submit your licence details when accepting the fixed penalty)..

So not entirely down to the ticket office, then. In fact you have been quite fortunate. The "Section 172" response provides the evidence the police need to prove that you were driving if they wish to prosecute you in court. In England and Wales there is a legal precedent which has determined that an unsigned s172 response does not meet the requirements of that part of the RTA. In effect, an unsigned response is equivalent to no response at all. (This precedent is not recognised in Scotland and there is a strategy to "go unsigned" to avoid conviction). When they receive an unsigned response the police are perfectly entitled to prosecute you for "Failing to provide drivers details" and they more often than not do. This offence carries six points, a hefty fine and insurance grief for up to five years. So you got lucky. The situation now is that the deadline for accepting a course is passed. Four months is the absolute maximum, with some forces cutting it back to as little as three months from the date of the offence. The police will not extend this because if you fail to complete the course before six months has elapsed, they can no longer prosecute you. They can only begin proceedings up to the corresponding date in June (i.e. if the offence was December 10th, they have until June 10th to begin proceedings). You will gain nothing by taking this to court. On the contrary you have a lot to lose. Courses are offered entirely at the discretion of the police, you have no right to one and the court has no powers to order one. Presumably you have been offered a fixed penalty of £100 and 3 points. If you are sentenced in court it will cost you at least three times that, possibly more (depending on your speed and your income). My advice: accept the fixed penalty and do it soon as there is a deadline for that as well and if you allow it to pass your matter will be taken to court anyway. Do not forget to submit your driving licence details as instructed when accepting the offer. If you fail to do so the police will have no time left to remind you (and they don't usually send reminders for this anyway) and, again, your case will end up in court.

Are you sure about that? What would this "magistrates warrant" be for? Bear in mind that magistrates do not issue "warrants of control" and in any case a warrant of control does not authorise forcible entry. . Unpaid fines imposed for criminal matters are often passed to bailiffs to attempt enforcement, but they do not have right of forced entry. The ultimate sanction for unpaid fines imposed in the magistrates' court is a custodial sentence in lieu of the fine.

Since you were stopped at the time there is no requirement for the police give you anything there and then or to send you anything before they have decided how to deal with the offence. They have three choices: Offer you a course Offer you a fixed penalty (£100 and three points) Prosecute you in court The only option that has a formal time limit is (3). They must begin court proceedings within six months of the date of the alleged offence. Options (1) and (2) have no time limit but since the only alternative the police have if you decline those offers is (3) they will not usually offer a course beyond three months from the date of the offence and will not usually offer a fixed penalty beyond four months from that date. This is so as to allow time for the driver to accept and comply with their offer and to give them the time to go to option (3) if he declines or ignores it. Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, the action they take will usually be in accordance with the National Police Chiefs' Council's guidance on speeding enforcement. In a 40mph limit this is as follows Up to 45mph - no action. Between 46mph and 53mph - offer a course Between 54mph and 65mph - offer a fixed penalty Over 65mph - prosecution in court So you can see that 54mph should see you offered a fixed penalty. Three weeks is not overly long for a fixed penalty offer to arrive. As well as that, there has been Easter in that period which will have slowed things down a bit. However, I would suggest that if it gets to about two months from the offence date and you have still heard nohing, I would contact the ticket office for the area where you were stopped to see if anything has been sent to you. Of course this raises the danger that you might be "stirring the hornets' nest". But in all honesty, if the police have decided to take no action, you jogging their memory should not really influence them. The bigger danger, IMHO, is that your fixed penalty offer may have been sent but lost and if you do not respond it will lapse. This will see the police revert to option (3) above. Whilst there is a mechanism in these circumstances to persuade the court to sentence you at the fixed penalty level (rather than in accordance with the normal guidelines which will see a harsher penalty), it relies on them believing you when you say you did not received an offer. In any case it is aggravation you could well do without so for the sake of a phone call, I'd enquire if it was me. I think I've answered all your questions but if I can help further just let me know. Just a tip - if you are offered a fixed penalty be sure to submit your driving licence details as instructed. I've seen lots of instances where a driver has not done this. There will be no reminder and no second chance; your £100 will be refunded and the police will prosecute you through the courts.

I think you need to tell us what actually happened. Your original post gives the impression that you were taken to court for a speeding offence. But you go on to say that you received no paperwork. So you could not have been summonsed for a speeding offence because the police had no evidence that you (or anybody else) was driving (and it seems you were not anyway). You were probably summonsed (or more likely received a Single Justice Procedure Notice) for "failing to provide the driver's details." You would not normally be banned for this offence if you were convicted - it carries six points. So did you have any earlier points which meant you were liable to a "totting up" ban? If you were originally convicted (as it seems you might have been) how was that conviction set aside? Did you perform a Statutory Declaration? There is simply too much missing for any meaningful help to be given. It seems as if there may have been an error by the DVLA but before you consider suing those idiots until the cows come home, you need to explain exactly what has happened.

To be clear, what you will be attending is not a "Single Justice" court. Nobody can attend a SJ hearing. I haven't read all of this but I assume at some point you returned the Single Justice Procedure Notice pleading guilty and asking to attend court. This means your case is now not being handled under the SJ procedure and instead will be heard in the normal Magistrates' court.

Thanks for letting us know. A NIP served beyond 14 days after the date of the alleged offence would not comply with Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders' Act, so no prosecution could succeed. The police know this but it is not unheard of for them to offer a fixed penalty in such circumstances, hoping the recipient is daft enough to accept it. But note there would still be an obligation to respond to the accompanying "request for driver's details."

A "Totting Uo" ban removes all points from your record.

“Proof” is whatever the court finds as proof. The testimony of the two officers is evidence and if, based on that evidence, the court is sure, beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed, you will be convicted. There is a popular misunderstanding that there needs to be photographic evidence to support offences of this kind. There need not. Testimony from eye witnesses is often sufficient. You need to take a step back from the alleged persecution you say you have suffered (a court will not be interested in that) and concentrate solely on the offence with which (I assume) you will face. You need to understand the elements of the offence. If the phone must be held at some point to undertake its functions it is considered to be “hand held” (whether you were holding it or not). There is little doubt that a court will find your phone, as you have described it, to be hand held. There is also little doubt that you were using it. Some of the things you have said here simply compound your problems. For example: What I think you are missing here is that you do not have to be holding the phone to be “using” it. It’s the design of the device itself which determines whether it is “hand held” (as I explained in my first post). If it is a hand held device, then using it as a satnav on the passenger seat would see an offence committed. The revised mobile phone legislation (introduced January 2022) makes doing virtually anything with a hand-held device into an offence. Of course it’s your decision whether to defend this in court. Failure (apart from the points) will be expensive. You will pay a fine of at least half a week’s net income, a “Victim Surcharge” of 40% of that fine and prosecution costs which will be at least £620. No change out of £1k for most people. Your points situation is unfortunate. Firstly it means you cannot accept a fixed penalty even if was offered and you wanted to accept it as the six points will indeed see you liable to a six month “totting up” ban. So your case will be heard in court. If you are convicted you can only avoid disqualification if you can convince the court that “Exceptional Hardship” will be suffered by you or others if you are banned. Let me know if I can help further.

You won't get a NIP for two reasons: 1. A NIP is only required if the driver was not stopped and warned at the time that a prosecution is being considered. 2. Mobile phone offences do not require a NIP in any circumstances. You may, however, get an offer of a fixed penalty (£300 and six points). You are on a sticky wicket here. If you look at the legislation (Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, Reg. 110) it says this: For the purposes of this regulation— (a)a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function; [my emphasis] You said that your phone was on the passenger seat. It is hard, therefore, to imagine that it need not be "....held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function." But I think you have a bigger problem than that. You will face testimony from two police officers who will both say they saw you using the phone. They have nothing to gain by perjuring themselves (and frankly, catching drivers using mobile phones is akin to shooting fish in a barrel). Your task will be to persuade the court they were both mistaken. On your own admission, you were using the phone and, by the definition provided in the legislation, it is not a hands-free phone. I would say you face an uphill struggle. As an aside: Why would you worry about tax? Your trade plates would have overcome the need for you to tax the car (provided you were using them in accordance with their conditions). They would not, however, have provided you with insurance cover. Nor would they have absolved the Registered Keeper (if any) from ensuring continuous cover was in place as required by s144A of the RTA.

A bit late on parade here (I've been away). Magistrates have guidance that suggests where an offence warrants either a (discretionary) ban or points, and points would make the driver either liable to a "totting up" ban (12 points within three years) or revocation of a licence under the New Drivers' legislation (six points within two years of passing his first test) then points should be imposed. The purpose of the New Drivers' legislation is to provide a deterrent to new drivers from offending. To impose a ban where one would not otherwise be considered (e.g. in the circumstances you describe) would be to deliberately circumvent the New Drivers' legislation and so frustrate the will of Parliament. There is no justification for doing so and I would be extremely surprised if your son's request was sucessful.

The worst that can happen, should you continue to ignore this, is that you will be convicted and sentenced in your absence. What the sentence may be is a little difficult to say as you have not told us what offence you have been charged with. There are a number of possibilities, including offences under TfL bylaws up to fraud (a criminal offence which can carry a custodial sentence). You will be informed by post (at the same address as the one you gave) and if you ignore that, enforcement action will be taken against you. This may see bailiffs or enforcement officers attempting to enforce any financial penalties and may ultimately end in your arrest (again, depending on the sentenced imposed). TfL take the abuse of staff passes very seriously and rarely offer out-of-court settlements. In any case the time for that has long passed and since you seem intent on trying to evade the matter entirely and are unwilling to engage with them anyway, the likelihood of it happening now is even smaller.

Are you sure it's a summons? They are rarely used these days. More likely to be a "Single Justice Procedure Notice." But it doesn't matter. What you are considering is unwise. Anybody sending documents associated with legal proceedings has only to prove they were sent to the recipient's last known address. So long as they do that it is deemed "served". As for the name discrepancy, where did TfL get your name from? Hiding away from these things is never a good idea.

If the offence was in mid-October, the police have until the corresponding date in mid-April to begin proceedings. In many areas they take all of that time, so you may have a little time to wait yet. BTW, you will not get banned for 56 days. The top "Band of seriousness" under the old sentencing guidelines (pre-April 2017) had an upper limit of 110mph. It was only for speeds in excess of that where the "grossly excessive" phrase came into play. With just a few mph lower than 109 (say up to about 104 or 105) six points is almost invariably the outcome. If you are banned I would be surprised to see one of more than 21 days, and very surprised if it exceeded 28 days.