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.

Deleted. (I hadn't read page 2)

Sorry, I didn’t quite get a handle on where this happened earlier. I know the A31 quite well too but I can’t quite gather the details of your route. The B3001 meets the A31 south of the Hogs Back (at Farnham, in fact) and you would have to drive north (back towards the A3) to get to the Hogs Back, but you said you were driving southbound before you turned round. Ironically, if you were travelling southbound there and the satnav told you to turn round, you were being directed back to the A3 and precisely the area you were trying to avoid. Which is another indication of the perils of relying on satnavs. But it doesn’t really matter as far as your problem goes. There is certainly one stretch of the A31 across the Hogs Back (in the vicinity of the Hogs Back Hotel) where the two carriageways are separated as you describe. I don’t know how you came to be on the southbound carriageway at that stretch – it makes no sense to me at all. But if that’s where you were, I agree that parts of the road there may, taken in isolation, give the impression of being single carriageway. I imagine you were somewhere around here: https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.226533,-0.714861,287.57h,-5.42p,0z,I0xw6LgdEVIp9yCUkj_yKQ As I said, I don’t know where exactly you might have joined the A31 southbound to approach the Hogs Back (the A31 begins a few miles further north, where it splits from the A3). But certainly at this point (north of the Hogs Back) it is clearly a dual carriageway: https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.226745,-0.695772,287.57h,-5.42p,0.42z,05spBYvtERib55HdiW5Pag If you follow the GSV from there you will come to the stretch where I believe you turned round. But there is no indication, between those two points, that the road has become a two way single carriageway. A little further on there is a junction with the road to Ash Green and it is clear at that point that the road is two lanes in the same direction (by virtue of the arrows in the road): https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.226733,-0.709591,287.57h,-5.42p,0z,cJ0qtfiZgThCa_GzPScb9A A little further still (just after the “Hotel” signpost on the left) the road opens out again and the opposite carriageway becomes clearly visible. I drive that stretch quite often and have done so both during the day and at night and from my perspective there is absolutely no reason to believe the carriageway has reverted to both way running. As well as that, as you can see from the GSV shots, the road is quite narrow there and I was astonished to learn that you performed a U-turn in the dark on that stretch. If you do return to the scene, see if you can find any indication as you travel southbound that the road becomes a single carriageway. I’m sure you won’t. If you take this matter to court it will be tried in a Magistrates’ Court local to that area and the Magistrates will very likely to be aware of the road’s layout. My view remains the same. You should not have performed a U-turn at that location and if the area was unfamiliar, you should have waited until a more suitable location to turn round was available. If you are offered a fixed penalty I should grab it with both hands as it is the best offer you will get. If it goes to court, I would recommend a guilty plea with as little said about why and where you turned round as possible.

Careless Driving is a very “subjective” offence, but the legislation says simply that if your driving falls “below that expected of a competent and careful driver” then you are guilty. Of course competent and careful drivers do not drive the wrong way on a dual carriageway. The first judgement will come from the police. They have the option of offering you a course or fixed penalty (£100 and three points). Unlike speeding (where the offer of an out-of-court disposal (OOCD) is quite prescriptive based on the limit and excess speed) careless driving is not so clear cut and is very much judged on a case-by-case basis. However, the police use some general guidance and I I believe their current rule is that to qualify for an OOCD the incident there must be: no victims no collisions no public complaint about the driving. the incident must be observed by officers (rather than only the public) In that respect it seems your incident may qualify. However, driving the wrong way down a dual carriageway is bordering on dangerous driving, as intimated by the officer. Although there were no victims and no collisions this was more luck than judgement and probably more down to the good fortune that the police intercepted you before any harm was done. If there had been any other vehicles on your carriageway there would almost certainly have been a collision and the consequences of what would have been a head-on smash could have been catastrophic. Your explanation of the event does little to mitigate the offence. I know you are not blaming the satnav instructions as such but you are giving them quite a bit of weight: “…therefore I don't think following it's instruction was literally an act of carelessness or recklessness on my part.” I would disagree. Following its instructions unquestionably is careless. This is especially so in the circumstances you describe. I know Junction 10 on the M25 very well. There have been major works in progress for some months and they are not due for completion until summer 2025. The junction is being completely remodelled and the new layout will cover a much larger area than the current arrangements. Different sections are often closed at night with diversions such as you encountered and it is impossible for satnav systems to be updated with the constantly changing relevant information. More than that, there is adequate signage from each of the four directions approaching the junction; there are narrow lanes and a restricted speed limit throughout. It is an extensive site involving major work. Quite simply, that vicinity – especially if you are re-routed because of road closures - it is not a place to depend on a satnav. You have to look out of the window. In my view, what you are saying actually aggravates the offence. Despite the obvious and apparent hazards, you still expected the satnav to see you safely through this major junction, even when it provided an instruction that was clearly inappropriate. For all these reasons I would be surprised if the police offered you an OOCD. If they don’t, you will be prosecuted in court and here are the Magistrates’ Sentencing Guidelines for the offence: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/careless-driving-drive-without-due-care-and-attention-revised-2017/ You will see from that guidance that your offence does not seem to exhibit either “Higher Culpability “ or “Greater Harm” and so should be placed in the lowest category of seriousness. However, you should also note this: “Where an offence does not fall squarely into a category, individual factors may require a degree of weighting before making an overall assessment and determining the appropriate offence category.” You might argue that your offence falls squarely into Category 3. However, the guidance is exactly that and I have little doubt that if Magistrates hear that you ended up driving the wrong way down a dual carriageway at 1am and only stopped when intercepted by the police, they will almost certainly add their own “weighting” to the offence and will probably place it in Category 2. This will see five or six points and a fine of one week’s income (reduced by a third if you plead guilty). "Also if anybody's got any idea of whether my observations about the sat navs inconsistent behaviour regarding turning people round on dual carriageways ( ie using roundabouts on most of them but not this specific one), would be accepted as extenuating circumstances, - any opinions or comments from people, would be much appreciated." The ideas I have are quite straightforward – they are not to be relied upon. The ultimate responsibility for his driving standards and any outcome resulting from them rests solely with the driver. This is especially so in the circumstances you describe, where it is clear (or at least should be clear to a competent and careful driver) that a satnav may not have all the most up to date information required. Any attempt to use the satnav’s instructions as mitigation will simply demonstrate to a court that the driver was not paying sufficient attention to his surroundings. Of course all this is only my view, based on the brief description you provided. It would be helpful if you informed us of the outcome, to add to the forums knowledge base.

And I've just noticed your remarks about the letter. It should give you details of the alleged offence (citing the legislation), how to pay the penalty (should that be your choice) and how to appeal (either to an arbitrator if it is appropriate or in the Magistrates' Court). Any chance you could post a redacted copy on here?

Unfortunately, as I said in my first reply, there is not a simple answer to the definition of littering. If the allegation is “littering” and it’s not being made under railway bylaws, then I suspect it is under s87 of the Environmental Protection Act. This is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/87 There is an interesting report by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England. It’s a lengthy tome, but the relevant passage begins on page 14: https://www.cpre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CPRE-Litter-Law-Report.pdf There are a number of points you could take on board: The High Court tried to define litter in the case of Westminster City Council v. Riding. The court took an approach based on the term’s natural or ordinary meaning, stating that the word ‘litter’ in the EPA 1990: ‘should be given its natural meaning of miscellaneous rubbish left lying about. Rubbish left lying about can consist of all manner of things including domestic household waste, commercial waste, street waste and no doubt other waste not falling within such description’. It goes on to mention “Exclusions” and in particular this: There are several categories of rubbish, all of which may also be regarded as a social problem, but, nonetheless, do not fall within the legal definition of ‘litter’ – the definition is relevant here for litter authorities, whose role it is to clear such waste. Categories of rubbish, as distinguished from litter, include: Detritus ‘comprises small, broken down particles of synthetic and natural materials, including dust, mud, soil, grit, gravel, stones, rotted leaf and vegetable residues, and fragments of twigs, glass, plastic and other finely divided materials. Leaf and blossom falls are to be regarded as detritus once they have substantially lost their structure and have become mushy or fragmented’. There is certainly an argument to be made that phlegm might fall into this category. It is interesting to note that dog fouling is specifically excluded from the litter laws. It has its own separate legislation and a person suspected of allowing a dog to foul the footpath or road cannot be convicted under the littering legislation. But I think more important from your son’s current situation (having been issued with a fixed penalty) is the guidance that DEFRA issued in 2015 to enforcement officers. It clearly states that there should be no fixed penalty notice (FPN) where the following circumstances apply: Where it is accidental littering, for example if something falls from someone’s pocket it’s not in the public interest to do so; the offender is vulnerable; the offence is trivial Of course none of these fit your son’s circumstances precisely, but they give you a flavour of how the law is likely to be interpreted. Furthermore, although guidance is not law, it remains persuasive to those making decisions. Have a read of the CPRE’s paper down to about page 20 to see more details. If I were you I would firstly try to engage with the LA emphasising that you do not consider that your son has committed a littering offence at all. But also add details about his condition, his vulnerability and the triviality of his action. I would try to make an analogy with someone vomiting on the pavement. It’s unpleasant, it’s would be nice if nobody did it, but occasionally it’s going to happen. Is it “littering”? I can’t see a court agreeing that it is and nothing I have found supports it.I think there is a very strong link between that and your son's actions. I have an idea that, when all the circumstances are taken into account, the LA will not run with this. The hurdle you must clear is to get it examined by somebody who knows what they are talking about as, once again without being unkind, many LA employees are poorly trained in such matters. Hope this helps. Do let us know how it goes as it helps us when advising others.

Unfortunately it's not that straightforward. There is no single definition of "Litter". Some legislation gives examples of what could be considered litter. It does not include material deposited by spitting but that is not an exhaustive list. As mentioned above, there have been a couple of threads where the definition of litter was discussed. Somebody suggested as a "rule of thumb" that if you can pick it up, it's litter, if you can't then it's not. This would seemingly rule out urine and phlegm, but this simple definition is not mentioned anywhere in any case law that I know of. There is certainly a strong case to suggest that urine is not litter. Whilst it's unpleasant, the litter laws were framed to prevent a different kind of "mischief". I would suggest that a similar principle could be applied to phlegm. I would think that if your son declined to pay the fixed penalty the council would look long and hard before prosecuting. You should let them know about his difficulties and also that they may find it hard to secure a conviction in the circumstances you describe. That said, once the FP has been declined he is at the mercy of the court. Being under 18 the matter will go before the Youth Court and whilst the burden of proof remains the same, the range of penalties is more restricted than in the adult court. I would like to think, however, that the council would take the view that for a couple of reasons a conviction may be difficult to secure but in any case that a prosecution is not "in the public interest". Local Authorities usually employ "Civil Enforcement Officers" and, without being unkind, their training is often not what it should be, especially when their decisions can result in criminal prosecutions. It's a bit late now but if I get time tomorrow I'll have a further think and look at the legislation and some case law (if I can find it).

What would he declare? That he is not John Smith? It should be fairly easy to prove that to anybody who asked, surely.

I would be a bit careful about how you phrase that. If your prosecution is indeed out of time (and from what you say it certainly appears to be) the council has no further alternatives. I would firstly get their view on the legality of their prosecution. Make absolutely sure of the date of the "written charge" which they sent to the court. If it is later than 10th November, ask them if they are aware of the provisions of Section 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act (which provides the "six month" rule) and how they believe a Magistrates' Court will deal with their prosecution: Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the jurisdiction of, and the practice and procedure before, magistrates’ courts and the functions... If it is earlier than 10th November (Making it considerably earlier than the date on your SJPN) ask them to explain why the two were not issued "at the same time" as required by Section 46 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act (note 46.3): Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK The prosecution is either in time (and so is lawful) or it is late (and so is unlawful). There is no reason why you should give them an incentive to decide one way or the other. Making an offer to pay the FP might give them the impression you are unsure of your ground. There is no need to be adverserial about this. They should be able to answer your questions quite readily.

Under the "Single Justice" procedure the court does not issue any paperwork - that is the responsibility of the prosecutor. The prosecutor must raise a "written charge". This is the equivalent of "laying an information" with the court. He must also issue an SJPN. This is the equivalent of a summons or postal requisition. The legislation says these should be issued "at the same time". Whilst there may be a momentary difference between the time these two are issued there should be no substantial difference. This means that if the OP's SJPN has a date of 30th November, the accompanying written charge should have the same date. This seems to be confirmed as the OP says he has a "charge date" of 30th November. - which appears to be out of time.

Then perhaps a puzzled phone call or eMail to whoever issued it, to establish on what basis they have begun court proceedings outside the statutory six month time limit.

The offence is a "summary" offence, meaning it can only be dealt with in the Magistrates' Court. With a few exceptions (which do not apply here) court proceedings for summary offences must begin within six months of the date of the alleged offence. Those dealt with under the "Single Justice" procedure are begun with a "written charge" (which goes to the court) and an SJPN (which goes to the defendant). The legislation (s.29 Criminal Justice Act) says that these should be issued "at he same time". What is the date on your SJPN?