Jump to content

Man in the middle

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Man in the middle

  1. I did say "in general". Each case will turn on its individual merits. However, the ruling you kindly provided does raise an important point - that the burden of proof (whether the place where the driving occurred is subject to the RTA) rests with the prosecution. It is not for the defendant to prove that where he drove was not subject to the law. The prosecution can do this by adducing evidence of use by the general public and that's what they failed to do in the case you cited.
  2. Keep careful track of what you do, who you speak to and keep copies of anything you send. Whilst some areas accept e-mail submissions from people nominating somebody else as the driver (e.g. as the lease company has in your case) in the normal course of events (even during Covid times) a written response (that is, on paper and signed) is required when making a reply to a s172 request if you were the driver. This is because the response is used as evidence that you were driving should you challenge the speeding allegation.
  3. That speed would qualify for a speed awareness course (provided you have not done one for an offence committed in the three years prior to this one). In fact it is the very lowest speed at which action is taken (Limit + 10% + 2mph). I think, even if the offence was in late November, the good ship "awareness course" may have sailed. It's also getting dangerously close to being too late for a Fixed Penalty. You should have heard by now (in fact well before now). You should contact the ticket office to find out (1) whether your response has been received and (2) if it has, how has you
  4. Just to add to the above, since it is now more than four months since the alleged offence, the chances of you being given the opportunity of a course or a fixed penalty are rapidly diminishing. Neither of those are offered much beyond four months as you have to be allowed time to take up the offer, during which period no prosecution can begin. They have to begin court proceedings within six months of the offence date. Why I asked the alleged speed and limit is because, if the offence qualifies for an out-of-court disposal you should have heard by now. There is no general delay in p
  5. What was the alleged speed and limit? That determines how the matter is dealt with after you have responded.
  6. The status or ownership of the road (i.e. "private" or "public") is not really a consideration for most of the RTA. Much of it applies to a "road or other public place." In general if the public have unfettered access to an area (that is, anybody could drive into it, even if they were not permitted to do so) then the RTA applies. But, as mentioned above, a far more important thing to check is the insurance cover for the vehicle. Unless a vehicle is declared off-road by way of a SORN (in which case it must be kept off the road) it must have in place an insurance policy which covers
  7. I can only strongly reiterate what Manxman has said. If you receive a S172 request for the driver's details you simply must respond to it. Very often we hear tales of people who received a request and, for whatever reason (either a plate mis-read, an administrative error or simply something as described in this question) they think "That's not my car, nothing to do with me" and they bin it. That is a very big mistake. You must respond, explain why you believe it is nothing to do with you and, as Manxman suggests, keep a copy and proof of posting. The idea of sending a second respon
  8. I've been following this and Manxman has covered all the angles. Just to advise you that should your father plead Not Guilty but be convicted, he faces a fine of one and a half week's net income, a "Victim Surcharge" of 10% of the fine (minimum £34) and prosecution costs which are usually £620. The prosecutor may reduce the amount requested as this is a fairly straightforward matter to prepare for court and will involve no "live" witnesses, but I doubt it will be less than £300. He will also have six points imposed on his licence and an endorsement code (MS90) which insurers really
  9. Then I think your best way forward is to pay the sum requested and take advantage of any discount that may be on offer for early payment. Unless, that is, you believe you did not commit the offences.
  10. Excellent news. Thanks for letting us know. The procedures adopted across the country do vary a bit from place to place at present but the principle is the same. The "advocate" you spoke to was probably the prosecutor. But it doesn't matter - whoever it was you got the right result!
  11. She needs to establish whether her SD has been accepted. In normal times they can only be done in person (either before a court or a solicitor) but at present they are taking them over the phone. The £811 fines would not be for speeding. They would have been for "failing to provide driver's details" (FtP) contrary to S172 of the RTA. This offence carries a fine of 1.5 times a week's net income, with £440 per week being used as a default figure. So £660 fine, £66 "Victim Surcharge" and £85 costs = £811. The offences also carry six points each. She could not have been convicted of sp
  12. Good news. Doing the "deal" should not present a problem. Remember to state that you will plead guilty to speeding only if the FtP charge is dropped.
  13. Just a couple of slight (but important) corrections. The SD was to swear that he was not aware of the proceedings against him that led to the conviction. It is silent on matters relating to the S172 request. There is no discretion for the court not to set aside the conviction. The SD has been sworn and (presumably) received there. There is no enquiry, either by the person hearing the SD or the court which has received it, into its veracity.
  14. Before you worry about fines and refunds you need to understand where you are at present. You have been convicted for “Failing to Provide Driver’s Details” (FtP). When you make your SD this is the conviction that will be set aside. That will eradicate the six points you have on your driving record and it should see a rebate of the fine/costs etc. that were paid. The e-mail you have received is not quite correct. The purpose of the hearing is for you to make your SD. You will almost certainly be asked to enter a plea following that but whether it is to the original offen
  15. Yes that is an absolute must. Generally the Council has no wish to see people committed to prison for Council Tax debt. They want to see the debt recovered where it is properly due and the debtor has the ability to pay. If he hasn't that ability they will take into account the debtor's financial situation and make any arrangements they can. But only a court can remit some or all of the debt. The more you engage with the Council the easier this will be.
  16. Following the issue of a Liability Order the Council must obtain a warrant of control to try to collect the debt. If they fail their only option is to return the matter to court and you will be asked to attend. At that hearing the court must be satisfied that: • A liability order was imposed in relation to the debt. • You have failed to pay; and • The council tried to collect the sum using a warrant of control, and failed. They must then go on to conduct a "means enquiry" into your financial circumstances. The principle aim of that is firstly to establis
  17. They will almost certainly not do that. In asking for a copy of the NIP and proof of postage you are effectively asking them to prove that aspect of their case against you and they are not usually prepared to do that. For the speed alleged (36 in a 30 limit) you will be offered a Speed Awareness Course (provided you have not done one in the last three years and the offence was not in Scotland). This will cost you about £90 and will be undertaken online. If you don't fancy that a Fixed Penalty (£100 and 3 points) is the alternative. The police offer these out of court disposals on
  18. Not much to say as Manxman has near enough covered all the angles. Just a couple of points of clarification: The requirement to serve the first NIP within 14 days is actually contained in the Road Traffic Offenders' Act, not the Road Traffic Act. In fact the first NIP is the only one required by law. Subsequent NIPs are usually provided along with the S172 Request for Driver's Details notice because they are both produced by the same system and are usually printed on the same piece of paper. If you do decide to challenge the speeding allegation on the basis
  19. Magistrates are guided on matters of law by their Legal Advisor (LA). Before reaching their verdict and announcing it in open court they must run their reasoning past their LA. Any LA hearing that a conviction was being considered even though the defendant had no case to answer would strongly counsel against it and the matter would be open to challenge in the Crown Court (where matters of law are ruled upon by a judge - his accompanying "lay" Magistrates hearing the appeal have no say on matters of law). When reaching their verdict Magistrates should have no consideration for the "sp
  20. I agree. But the difference is quite important. The list of exemptions is exhaustive. If you don't fit the list you are not exempt and that's that. So if you went to court claiming an exemption all the prosecution would have to prove was that none of the exempt categories applied to you. In fact, all the person suspected of the offence would have to do, when tackled by a police officer, would be to prove that he was exempt and (provided the officer is sensible) that would be that. No subjective decision is required on the officer's part. With a "reasonable excuse" it's different. I
  21. I think we need to be a bit careful here. The OP is not claiming an ”exemption”. He is claiming that he failed to wear a face covering because he had a “reasonable excuse.” Whilst the legislation mentions both, there is a critical difference. The legislation says this: Regulation 3 (1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering. (2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply— (a) to a child who is under the age of 11; . . [and other people, such as those w
  22. Correct! The issue here is not what you think of the OP's action. It is whether or not he is guilty of the alleged offence.
  23. No it wouldn't. These Fixed Penalty Offers are not like car parking notices. If you take the matter to court the Fixed Penalty becomes irrelevant. The FP is an offer to you to dispose of the matter without criminal prosecution. If you decline the offer the only alternative is for the police to prosecute you. In court the police have to prove that you were not wearing a mask and you did not have a "reasonable excuse" for failing to do so. You don't have to prove anything. Quite how they will do this is not very clear. You told them your reason and they chose not to belie
  24. I find both those ideas ridiculous. What is it they suggest he does (whilst he's on duty working for the railway, that is)? Follow his spouse around to check the pass isn't being misused. I couldn't see that standing up to proper scrutiny.
  • Create New...