speeding ticket

[bbch60]

Does anyone know what the leeway is, if any on a speeding ticket?

 

Thanx

[crem]

If by "leeway" you mean at what speed they generally prosecute, it is +10% plus 1, then they prosecute at the next mph.

 

eg on a 30mph, they allow you 30 +10% (=33) plus 1 (=34) then they would prosecute at the next mph (35mph)

 

If you already have the speeding ticket then I presume you were exceeding this allowance already.

[patdavies]

ACPO guidelines are for the prosecution threshold to be limit +10% + 2.

 

This has the same as Crem's post, but in terms recognised by the authorities.

 

However, it can never be used as an argument to overturn, Speeding is an absolute offence and 1 mph above the limit renders you liable for prosecution - especially as it is illegal for a car speedometer to under-read at any speed.

 

ACPO's guidelines are just that - guidelines - and have no force in law.

[bbch60]

Hieveryone thanks for the info - yes I have a ticket at 35mph.

[jeccapf]

ACPO guidelines are for the prosecution threshold to be limit +10% + 2.

 

This has the same as Crem's post, but in terms recognised by the authorities.

 

However, it can never be used as an argument to overturn, Speeding is an absolute offence and 1 mph above the limit renders you liable for prosecution - especially as it is illegal for a car speedometer to under-read at any speed.

 

ACPO's guidelines are just that - guidelines - and have no force in law.

 

I have a ticket at 35 - hurrumph! However, the offence happened (apparently) 21st November 08 - not that I knew anything about it I never received any notice. The case was laid before the court 29th May 2009 which is more than 6 months after the offence. I know they cant prosecute if its laid more than 6 months later but has anyone got any idea of the provision that I quote regarding this?

[patdavies]

I have a ticket at 35 - hurrumph! However, the offence happened (apparently) 21st November 08 - not that I knew anything about it I never received any notice. The case was laid before the court 29th May 2009 which is more than 6 months after the offence. I know they cant prosecute if its laid more than 6 months later but has anyone got any idea of the provision that I quote regarding this?

 

Firstly, were you at the time of the offence (and for some time previous to that) the registered keeper and does the V5C show your correct address (ie where you can be contacted).

 

If you were not stopped at the time, then the Police force concerned is required by the Road Traffic Act to serve a Notice of Intended Prosecution to the RK within 14 days of the alleged offence. If you have not received this, then no prosecution can proceed.

 

If you had not received (and thus, not responded) to a NIP, then it is very unlikely that they would have proceeded with a speeding prosecution; they would have moved ahead with a failure to supply offence.

 

If you can show that you never received a summons, then you can get the judgement set aside and return the matter to the summons stage.

 

So we need a lot more information.

 

Lastly, was the 29th May the hearing date or the information laid date on the summons. The information has to be laid to issue the summons within 6 months; they have up to 3 years then to serve the summons.

[andie_303]

My partner was prosecuted for doing 34 in a 30 zone - he was made to go on a speed awareness course in exchange for £60 fine and no points.

[jeccapf]

Firstly, were you at the time of the offence (and for some time previous to that) the registered keeper and does the V5C show your correct address (ie where you can be contacted).

 

If you were not stopped at the time, then the Police force concerned is required by the Road Traffic Act to serve a Notice of Intended Prosecution to the RK within 14 days of the alleged offence. If you have not received this, then no prosecution can proceed.

 

If you had not received (and thus, not responded) to a NIP, then it is very unlikely that they would have proceeded with a speeding prosecution; they would have moved ahead with a failure to supply offence.

 

If you can show that you never received a summons, then you can get the judgement set aside and return the matter to the summons stage.

 

So we need a lot more information.

 

Lastly, was the 29th May the hearing date or the information laid date on the summons. The information has to be laid to issue the summons within 6 months; they have up to 3 years then to serve the summons.

 

OK so the offence was supposedly on 21st November (on which day I was actually in hospital having an operation on my leg and I was unable to walk at all for 10 weeks after this, certainly couldnt drive!)

 

The notice of intended prosecution they have sent with the summons was dated 2nd December, but I never got it, but then, I never got any post as the post box was outside and I was stuck inside and people had to bring the post in for me.

 

Now with me going on about this today, my 19 year old son has admitted that he "didnt give me" some items of post if it looked like something that would upset me - he didnt open it, just delivered it to the bin instead of to me, so he cant say if the notice was one of those items he threw out "official looking stuff". Yes I know - bloody kids - but he meant it kindly.

 

Now I've been summonsed, with information laid to the court on 29th May 09 - but the offence isnt the speeding offence it is the failure to fill in the Notice of Intended Prosecution, which I didnt get. The first I knew of this offence was when I got this summons today, there is one photo, which IS my car and only I drive my car, but you cant see the driver, and really - truly I cant say who it was coz I was in hospital. We have established that it wasnt my son, (oh yes I asked that straight away!) who was at work that day and can prove it.

[patdavies]

Right, assuming that you haven't missed the Court date, you plaed not guilty.

 

All the stuff about not receiving the NIP. etc, is now irrelevant and need not be referred to in Court,

 

The basis of your defence is s.172(3) of the RTA 1988

(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was.

in that you can prove that you were a hospital inpatient at the time and gave no-one permission to use the vehicle and you cannot ascertain who was driving. You have asked all those whom you know had access to the vehicle and no-one has been forthcoming; you know for certain fact that it could not have been you as proven by your hospital records (obtain these or a letter of confirmation from the hospital that you were an inpatient at the relevant time)

[bbch60]

Thanks for the info on the leeway for speeding tkts. Yes I have a tkt for 35 in a 30 mph zone. I have been told that there may be a possibility of doing a speed awareness course instead of the points - does anyone know anything about this?

[crem]

You can only go on a speed awareness course if it is offered to you. i.e. it is not your choice, but the choice of the police if it is available in your area. Also I believe it would only be offered if this is your first offence and the speeding was marginal. (you aren't going to be offered it if you were doing 55 in a 30!)

 

The advantage of doing such a course is that the offence does not result in points on your license, but the cost of the course often exceeds the level of the fine you would have received.

[david1605red]

Thanks for the info on the leeway for speeding tkts. Yes I have a tkt for 35 in a 30 mph zone. I have been told that there may be a possibility of doing a speed awareness course instead of the points - does anyone know anything about this?

But you are not being prosecuted for speeding, that is irrelevant now.

 

The offence is Failure to Furnish Information (s172), which is deemed to have occurred on the 28th day after service of the unanswered NIP.

 

As stated above, you have a good defence because you were not in a position to respond at the time, and can prove it.

[patdavies]

But you are not being prosecuted for speeding, that is irrelevant now.

 

The offence is Failure to Furnish Information (s172), which is deemed to have occurred on the 28th day after service of the unanswered NIP.

 

As stated above, you have a good defence because you were not in a position to respond at the time, and can prove it.

 

No, there are two intertwined actions here.

 

bbch60 is being prosecuted for speeding - as far as I can tell.

 

jecappf is being prosecuted for failing to furnish

[crem]

No, there are two intertwined actions here.

 

bbch60 is being prosecuted for speeding - as far as I can tell.

 

jecappf is being prosecuted for failing to furnish

 

Just shows how confusing it gets when 2 problems end up in the same thread.

[jeccapf]

Yes I'm being prosecuted for fail to furnish, and after I've checked things out, I WAS in hospital that day, I had an accident (not motoring) that required an operation to my leg - BUT it seems this picture was taken 1 hour BEFORE the accident, so it was me, taken by a mobile unit 35 in a 30.

 

Now, I really didnt get the notice to furnish, as my post box is outside and even after I got out of hospital (completely imobilised -I couldnt even get upstairs) my son decided that I shouldnt have additional worries and he 'withheld' certain post - one of which may or may not have been the notice. Now what do I do? He may have been foolish, but he meant well, I dont want him in trouble, but I really didnt get the notice. Help please

[wheelergeezer]

Well, apart from the original offence of speeding which I presume you will just take as it was you, you cannot really be prosecuted for failing to comply with something unless you knew about it. The fact that you didn't receive it means you didn't know and thus could not comply. It doesn't particularly matter why you didn't get it and some would suggest economy with the actual facts may be best here suffice to say you di not receive the notice.

 

I would suggest legal advise is best at this stage, I do not know the way these are dealt with but I would imagine it is feasible that the 'not providing' part would be found not guiolty if you didn't receive the request in the first place.

[patdavies]

How long were you in hospital?

 

Are you being prosecuted only for failing to furnish, or for speeding as well?

Edited June 22, 2009 by patdavies