Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Aretnap last won the day on August 22 2016

Aretnap had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

591 Excellent

About Aretnap

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I don't think this is quite correct. The key considerations are (1) do members of the public, as opposed to a special class of people (like residents and their guests), actually use the area, and (2) if so, do they do so in defiance of a prohibition, explicit or implicit? The fact that it's physically possible for the public to access an area doesn't make it a public place. The presence of a physical barrier is good evidence that a place is not public, but the absence of a barrier is not proof that it is public - a "keep out" or "residents only" sign would have the
  2. If the speed gun is pointed at you from an angle it would indeed affect the accuracy of the reading... by making your speed appear lower than it actually was. So that wouldn't be a good argument to reply on. (For those who remember A-level physics what the speed gun is measuring is the component of the vector of your velocity in the direction of the speed gun. Which is the cosine of the angle between your heading and the speed gun. If you're doing 40mph the speed gun will show a reading of 40 if you are driving straight towards it, 38.6 at an angle of 15 degrees, 34.6 at an angle o
  3. The normal fine for each offence is a band B fine, whihc means 100% of his weekly post-tax income. This would be reduced by a third if he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity (by post if he wasn't attending court). So did he complete and return the paperwork that came with the original summons/SJPN? In particular (1) Did he indicate that he was pleading guilty? If not, he wouldn't have got the one third discount (2) Did he fill in the statement of means with details of his income? If not, his income would be assumed to be £440/week - the notional national average. Prosec
  4. The Gatso's primary speed measurement comes from the radar device - the distance you have travelled between the two photographs simply acts as a secondary or back-up check. The markings on the road look pretty clear to me. And even if they weren't clear there is an approved technique for carrying out the secondary check using photogrammetry - so the lines are only there for convenience, they are not actually required for a successful prosecution. That would be Highway Code Rule 123 - "The 30 mph limit usually applies to all traffic on all roads with street lighting unless signs show
  5. A NIP is only required for certain, specified offences. (They are offences to which Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act applies - listed here) Use of a vehicle in a dangerous condition is not one of those offences. So no NIP is required at all - verbal or written, at the time of the offence or 14 days later. The whole question of NIPs or 14 day timelines simply doesn't arise. The only relevant deadline is that in order to prosecute the OP for the offence they have to initiate court proceedings within 6 months, ie by late December.
  6. Presumably you mean driving while disqualified. Driving without insurance has a maximum penalty of a fine and a driving ban - it cannot attract a prison sentence, suspended or otherwise. From a criminal viewpoint the lack of insurance is very much secondary to the fact that he was driving while disqualified - that has a maximum penalty of 6 months in prison (though a community order and/or suspended sentence would be more likely unless the OP is a repeat offender).
  7. The law is actually pretty clear in that if you show a valid insurance certificate which covers the driver's use of the vehicle, then the police have no right to seize the vehicle. End of. What the police believe is irrelevant at that point. Of course the police might misunderstand the wording on the certificate, or believe reasonably but incorrectly that it's not a valid certificate, and decide to seize the vehicle. But if they do then they do so at their peril - if their suspicions turn out to be wrong then they will have acted unlawfully and they will be liable for the costs incurred b
  8. No it isn't. The point is that it's an alternative to prosecution or a fixed penalty, so you don't get a conviction and you don't get points on your licence. It has nothing to do with insurance, and the people who organise the courses have no power to decide what insurers can and can't ask about. Well, whether or not you're required to disclose the information is a different question from how likely you would be to be caught if you didn't disclose it. It's true that as lies you could tell your insurer go, this is one of the ones you'd probably be more likely to get away with, as insure
  9. No reason to expect a court date. Anything up to 85mph in a 60 limit would normally be dealt with by a fixed penalty (I've 3 points and £100).
  10. Glad it got sorted out. The third party driver was never at risk of having to put her hand in her own pocket though, assuming she was properly insured. Her insurer is obliged to pay for all claims which are successfully made against her, so while they can say to Albany "you're having a giraffe - take it to court if you like", if Albany do take it to court and win then they can't continue refusing to pay. So while on paper the claim might be you vs the other driver, in practice it's actually Albany vs her insurer, and it's her insurer who ends up paying if she loses.
  11. There is potentially a defence - if it was not reasonably practical for her to provide the information within the 28 days then she has a defence, provided she did provide it as soon as reasonably practical (if it was ever reasonably practical). Precisely what is reasonably practical isn't defined by the law and is a question for the court to make a judgement call on based on the specific circumstances. If she was seriously ill in hospital for many weeks with no access to her home or her mail then it would be a very hard hearted magistrate who thought that she should have been
  12. You're misreading the guidelines (admittedly they're badly written) and missing the bit about fixed penalties. For a 70 limit a fixed penalty will normally be offered at speeds of 95 or lower, assuming the OP is eligible for one (ie he isn't already on 9 points or more). 3 points and £100. An instant summons would only come into play at 96 or above. The OP can only really wait and see what comes through the door. If it wasn't a traffic officer them there's always the chance that he might decide that it's not worth the paperwork, and that he'll forget about it.
  13. Your insurance documents will say when you need to tell your insurer about the points - with most insurers it won't be until your renewal date. However telling them now means that there's no risk of forgetting and shouldn't affect your premium until you renew. Three points for speeding won't usually make a lot of difference to your premium anyway - just use the comparison sites to shop around. It's not as if you're a drunk driver or some other pariah who the mainstream insurers won't touch. If the police only cared about making money they'd have sent you on a course - that way they k
  14. If the OP (or rather his wife) really has done all he could to identify the driver then he does indeed have a defence to the case and no offence has been committed (other than the red light offence of course). However the law puts the burden on the defendant to prove that he/she did all he could, and "all he could" is a higher bar than a lot of people realise. The defence is not impossible to make, but it's not easy either.
  15. Your problem is that too many people who take their legal advice from a bloke in the pub think that a brilliant wheeze for getting out of speeding tickets is to say "sorry, can't remember who was driving, could have been either of us". As a result magistrates tend to treat the claim that two grown adults can't remember a journey they made a few days earlier with a healthy degree of scepticism, and while it's not impossible to defend these cases you are certainly on the back foot, and you be to be unusually credible when giving evidence to defend them. And the penalty for fail
  • Create New...