Jump to content


Fixed Penalty Notice, Mobile phone not guilty.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4007 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I was stopped this morning for apparently driving whilst using a mobile phone. I wasn't, and hadn't even used the phone that morning at all.

 

The officer asked to see my mobile and the call log on it - I obliged - he then told me I had made a call at xx am today. I again said I hadn't used the phone, and asked to see the call he was referring to.

 

The call he was referring to was 24 hours earlier, and there were NO calls in or out this morning. I was then told I was to be charged because he had seen me using the phone.

 

I simply had not used the phone at all, but he did not seem interested, so I am left with a £60 / 3 points or go to court......

 

What chance do I have in court - I am so p**sed off as I genuinly did nothing wrong other than come across a grumpy cop.

 

Any advice welcomed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought that if you present the court with a copy of your mobile phone statement and ask to see the officer's note book entry which states that he checked the phone's log at the scene it'll be no case to answer.

 

"I may have been scratching my ear your honour"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pebsham,

 

I do plan to fight it, and will at least seek some legal advice come next week. Mobile call logs will certainly back me up. I just can't understand why, after pointing out his mistake, he still charged me? Easy money? Another mug who will just pay up rather than risk a bigger fine........Makes you wonder .........Oh and the police were at least 50 or 60metres away across 4 lanes of traffic at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Kmal,

 

This happened to my son. He was pulled over for apparently using his mobile phone. Luckily my son had forgot to pick up his mobile from the boot of the car when he was putting something in. The officer asked him to prove the mobile was in the boot & he did. But he still got a fine for apparently not wearing his seat belt.

 

I was annoyed as my son is only 18, He works full time and struggles to pay for his car finance as well as the over priced insurance. He was driving legally and the officer probably was pi**ed off that he couldn't get him for a more serious offence.

 

Seems to me they are targeting the legal drivers because they are easy targets.

 

I would be grateful if you let me know the outcome if you challenged the FPN.

 

Roz

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have thought that if you present the court with a copy of your mobile phone statement and ask to see the officer's note book entry which states that he checked the phone's log at the scene it'll be no case to answer.

 

"I may have been scratching my ear your honour"

 

Your statement does not show incoming calls therefore it's not much use as evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Kmal,

 

This happened to my son. He was pulled over for apparently using his mobile phone. Luckily my son had forgot to pick up his mobile from the boot of the car when he was putting something in. The officer asked him to prove the mobile was in the boot & he did. But he still got a fine for apparently not wearing his seat belt.

 

I was annoyed as my son is only 18, He works full time and struggles to pay for his car finance as well as the over priced insurance. He was driving legally and the officer probably was pi**ed off that he couldn't get him for a more serious offence.

 

Seems to me they are targeting the legal drivers because they are easy targets.

 

I would be grateful if you let me know the outcome if you challenged the FPN.

 

Roz

 

I think the policeman has done your son a favour.

 

25 years since seat belt law introduced - yet 370 still die every year because they don't belt up | Mail Online

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your statement does not show incoming calls therefore it's not much use as evidence.

 

That's correct.

 

 

If phone is on PAYG, get another phone just for now with another chip.

 

 

All the evidence will remain on the phone providing the battery is not removed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even then - twittering, facebook are just part of the data load and leave to residual 'log' to be used for or against. Someone got done for HOLDING their mobile as they were going through the ringtones to entertain the kids. No calls, but the defence was rejected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not even then - twittering, facebook are just part of the data load and leave to residual 'log' to be used for or against. Someone got done for HOLDING their mobile as they were going through the ringtones to entertain the kids. No calls, but the defence was rejected.

 

The offence is "using a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, while driving" There is no mention of making/receiving calls etc. I would say going through ringtones is using the phone, same as texting, sending tweets etc. There is no real difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The offence is "using a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, while driving" There is no mention of making/receiving calls etc. I would say going through ringtones is using the phone, same as texting, sending tweets etc. There is no real difference.

 

Unless you are Jimmy Carr!!

 

Jimmy Carr gets off phone while driving charge after Mr Loophole tells court: 'He was only telling a joke' | Mail Online

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not even then - twittering, facebook are just part of the data load and leave to residual 'log' to be used for or against. Someone got done for HOLDING their mobile as they were going through the ringtones to entertain the kids. No calls, but the defence was rejected.

 

Unlucky....

 

The law states that it is an offence to use a mobile telephone or handheld device while making or recieving a call or performing a ineractive communication function.... which is:

 

'Interactive communication function' includes the following: (1) sending or receiving oral or written messages; (2) sending or receiving facsimile documents; (3) sending or receiving still or moving images; and (4) providing access to the internet
I think that is why Jimmy Carr was cleared:

 

 

Either that, or its a case of who you are (and being able to afford Mr Loophole)

Edited by mightymouse_69
Removed link to Jimmy Carr story - G&M beat me!

Warning: Freemen of the Land Operate here. Think twice before accepting 'legal advice'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

The trouble is for most people 'using' a mobile phone is understood to be just that - voice calls or texting. Reading the screen, or 'playing' with the buttons is OK... (they think).

 

You might remember the story 2 weeks ago of a motorist being given a penalty charge notice for blowing his nose, claiming he was stopped in his van at lights, with handbrake on and gear in neutral as he was in snot evacuation mode.

 

He was then handed a FPN for 'Not being in control' of his vehicle - supposedly into his freehand. Anyway, after a letter from his solicitor, the PF having initially confirmed it WOULD prosecute, notified the driver they would now not proceed. Representatives of the policeman said they were annoyed at this as they would prove he was actually driving with his elbows whilst blowing his nose.... but we'll never know...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlucky....

 

The law states that it is an offence to use a mobile telephone or handheld device while making or recieving a call or performing a ineractive communication function.... which is:

 

I think that is why Jimmy Carr was cleared:

 

 

Either that, or its a case of who you are (and being able to afford Mr Loophole)

 

I think the later is correct the first bit is wrong the law actually states....

 

" Mobile telephones

110. - (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using -

 

 

  • (a) a hand-held mobile telephone; or
     
    (b) a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).

and also gives the deffinition of a mobile phone, note that it does not state it has to be used as an interactive device just that when it is it requires to be held.

  • (6) 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;
       
      (b) a person supervises the holder of a provisional licence if he does so pursuant to a condition imposed on that licence holder prescribed under section 97(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (grant of provisional licence);
       
      © "interactive communication function" includes the following:
       
      • (i) sending or receiving oral or written messages;
         
        (ii) sending or receiving facsimile documents;
         
        (iii) sending or receiving still or moving images; and
         
        (iv) providing access to the internet;

Edited by green_and_mean
Link to post
Share on other sites
Your statement does not show incoming calls therefore it's not much use as evidence.

 

 

I would think if requested the operator will provide a print out of calls in - out. They do hold this information for anti terror reasons (so they say)

Link to post
Share on other sites
or performing any other interactive communication function;

 

 

Thats a pretty broad statement! Just about anything could be argued to be interacting with yoru phone - even talking into a hands free unit is 'interaction'!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats a pretty broad statement! Just about anything could be argued to be interacting with yoru phone - even talking into a hands free unit is 'interaction'!

 

Indeed but using a 'hands free' interactive device is legal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But he wasn't wearing a seat belt :???:

 

I didn't say he wasn't wearing his seat belt. He was pulled over as they claimed he was using his mobile, he proved them wrong. So they fined him claiming he wasn't wearing his seat belt. Had it been me that was wrongly accused I would have challenged it. My son however would have had a lot more to lose if they decided to take the officers word.

If his mobile had been in the front of the car with him he would have had 3 points added to his licence.

 

I really don't see how the officer had done him a favour by fining him for an offence they did not witness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't see how the officer had done him a favour by fining him for an offence they did not witness.

 

And which you didn't witness either so we only have the word of your son that the Police lied in order to issue a FPN for no reason whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's correct.

 

 

If phone is on PAYG, get another phone just for now with another chip.

 

 

All the evidence will remain on the phone providing the battery is not removed

 

You can get a sim card from ASDA and they are free if you put some brass on the card.

Call costs are 8p per/min for mobiles/land lines and 4p per SMS.

I have used such a SIM for ages. No contract.

I use about £2 a month, just carry in case an emergency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...