Refused to Sign Roadside FPN from a Police Officer

[Homer67]

I don't think it is fair to suggest that the officer was arrogant or a "know it all" when essentially, the police officer was correct.

 

The offence is there for a good reason - there has to be some sort of standard that registration plates have to meet.

 

Why not?

 

I said 'it sounded like' meaning it read like the officer was arrogant (it does) and later in my post I said 'when talking to a know it all officer' which pretty much they all are when fresh out of Hendon, it takes some years to sort the power crazed from the genuine souls who want to make and maintain society better for the law abiding.

 

Yes, Plod was correct in that the OP was commiting an offence, I stated that and the OP stated that, everybody agrees that an offence was commited.

 

Clearly the OP has knowledge of how the offence could have been dealt with and stated so, my comments clarify that while I don't agree with the OP that it is OK to commit any offence, I do applaud him for the way he dealt with the copper and did not allow then to intimidate him purely because of the uniform and an attiitude. However I also state that with a little more experience the OP may have dealt with the copper differently and avoided the FPN by adopting a more humble atttiude rather than telling the copper 'I know my rights' etc.

 

The fact the copper chose to go straight for a FPN without using discretion and dealing with it at the roadside (the OP offered to change the plate there and then) shows his inexperience and the matter could have been sorted there and then with no waste of public money on a a pointless paper trail which costs more then the £60 revenue gathered.

 

Why I have just had to explain that to you escapes me to be honest.

[mightymouse_69]

 

Why I have just had to explain that to you escapes me to be honest.

 

Likewise.

 

This is about discretion. How the officer dealt with the offence is his prerogative. The OP came across as believing that it was his god given right to receive a VDRS form rather than a FPN, especially where he says the officer failed to "follow protocol."

 

This is further aggravated by the nature of the offence - in that the OP had gone out of his way to flout the law fully aware of the risks.

 

Any judgment as to the conduct of the officer should be reserved considering that the only account we have is from the OP who is obviously not going to be best pleased. I do not think that it reads as if the officer was arrogant - it was in fact the OP who was obstructive. Although the OP offered to change the plate then and there, the offence had already been committed. The officer was correct in his judgment that the OP was willing to flout the law (given that the OP changes the plates in order to get the car through an MOT.) It seems clear that to allow the OP to change the plates would not have been satisfactory since the OP would have merely swapped them back over again at a later date.

[Memnoch]

Personally, I would accept the fine, if you take it to court. The magistrates are likely to stick you some extra costs for wasting the Police and Courts time.

 

Fine - £60

Costs - anything up to £500 (saw a bloke get £430 costs recently for a littering offence)

 

You decide !!!

[patdavies]

op has stated he recieved a FPN not a VRM.

 

An FPN for a defective VRM (Vehicle Registration Mark)...

[Old Snowy]

VRM defect is non-endorsable, so no points. Just the fine.

This is entirely correct. A VRM - Vehicle Registration Mark - defect is indeed non-endorseable.