Motoring advice speeding ticket

[petethemanc]

Just a little bit of advice on this one. I recieved summons to say i have to pay a £625 fine for failing to provide details of the driver. Now, i live in Yorkshire, but used to live in Lancashire and the alleged offence was in Lancashire. So....this took me by suprise so i rang the magistrates and they advised me it was imposed on the 12th jan this year.....but the alleged offence was 4th June last year. Also the summons says absolutely nothing about whether its speeding/gatzo/fixed camera or anything really. And it also asks if i am the registered keeper of the vehicle......but yet gives no vehicle details. So i ring Blackbutn magistrates courts a ring and they say there is no more information on their screen, they would have to get them from the case papers, and didnt even seem interested in giving me any information at all. Now the registration plate of the car they mention was written off in April last year but the offence was 4th June......doesnt seem to amke sense. How can i get the paperwork the magistrates courts hold on this as this is due to be heard on the 21st this month. They arent being very helpful in this matter at all.Also, the details of this were never sent to where i registered the vehicle as also on the V logbook, it was sent to an old military address that i had not used in 5 years. What i need to know is, was the actual alleged offence on the date i have been told by the courts, or was it earlier....and i can only do this apparently by getting the paperwork from the courts.

[petethemanc]

Anyone??

[sailor sam]

Couple of questions; If you have been 'fined' £625, presumebly the matter has already been heard so what is the hearing on the 21st all about? Also do you have proof that the car relating to the VRM was written off in April last year? could be a case of vehicle cloning. Obviously you need to find out the vheicle details. I would ring the court again and fully explain what you have said here and inform them that you have not received any correspondence about the alleged offence. Also make them aware that your car was wriiten off prior to the alleged offence was commited. Hopefully you will have proof to show them.

[Old Snowy]

The offence of failing to furnish the name address offence could well have been committed in June bearing in mind that the earliest point at which it could have happened was 28 days after the requirement was made and that could have been up to 13 days after the offence so potentially there is a very nearly six week delay after the car was last on the road.

 

That aside the fact that the vehicle was scrapped - presumably after the offence - is a side issue. You were the registered keeper at the time of the alleged offence (again, presumably). I also assume that you moved home after the vehicle was disposed of and would therefore have been unaware of the original paperwork and then the summons. Did you not have a mail redirect on?

 

Within 21 days of your having become aware of your conviction you need to attend you local magistrates court and make an appointment to swear a statutory declaration. This is a formal document setting out that you have no knowledge of the alleged offence and had received no summons - you'd moved home after all. The letter you have had from Blackburn MC is probably a certificate of conviction and will have the original case reference on it. It would be best if you can have this to hand when you go to your local court so they know where to send the statutory declaration on to.

 

A statutory declaration effectively resets the clock as if the original case had not been heard. The prosecution will be told that you have filed a declaration and they may then choose to restart the case or not. You have a clear defence to the offence - you did not furnish the details requirement of you because you were unaware that the requirement had been made of you. They could not now proceed against you the original offence - assuming it was a simple speeding - as the statute of limitations (six calendar months) has more than slightly expired. You can even argue that were you to be made the subject of a further requirement now that it would be impractical for you to supply the information because of the inordinate delay.

[sailor sam]

The OP states that his car was wriiten off in April, 2 months before the alleged offence took place.

[petethemanc]

The car was written off in late April, and yes, the court has said that June 4th was the date of the alleged offence. But is it possible that the incident was before June the 4th, and that was when it was entered?? this is why i need the paperwork as this is all a bit vague. There are as i say, even no details of any vehicle on the summons, yet they want me to say if im the registered keeper. I dont want to fork out £700 for a solicitor if i can do the job myself with this. I have no idea as to when they say any correspondence was sent, and it also went to my old military address as i have said. I had no redirect for the address in Blackburn as i notified everyone that i was moving in plenty of time.

[sailor sam]

Providing that you can prove that you car was wriiten off in April, you shouldn't have a problem. No doubt you would of notified the DVLA (if the car was scrapped) and you will have insurance correspondence to hand or you could obtain copies.

[petethemanc]

Understood. But just because the date says 4th june (that ive been told by the courts) i need the paperwork that states exactly what/when/where so that i know if the car at that time had been written off.....as it could have been earlier than June 4th and that was when paperwork was sent. How can i ask the courts for a copy of this?

[sailor sam]

You state that the alledged offence was the 4th June. If the court cannot confirm the date of the offence, how can they convict? In any event, you still havn't answered my question, do you have written proof that you car was written off in April?

 

I would also follow Old Snowy's advice by filing a statutory declaration. You should contact the court and ask them if they will send out the necessary paperwork.

[petethemanc]

Yes i can get the infor regarding the car being written off no problem. The woman i spoke to said that they would have to get the information needed from the clerks paperwork, i have no experience in this so dont know how about asking. Can i just ask? is there anything i need to fill in to ask for them?

[sailor sam]

Just ring up and ask them, they should tell you what you need to do. You could take the case number to your local mags court and see if they can help you. They won't bite!

[Tony P]

Understood. But just because the date says 4th june (that ive been told by the courts) i need the paperwork that states exactly what/when/where so that i know if the car at that time had been written off.....as it could have been earlier than June 4th and that was when paperwork was sent. How can i ask the courts for a copy of this?

The point I think being missed is the offence was failing to respond to the paperwork request by a certain date. The existance or otherwise of the car at that date is quite immaterial.

 

What you should be looking for is the date of the alleged 'traffic' offence that the Police were enquiring about - not the time limit for answering that request which is what the Magistrates knew about. Once you know that earlier alleged 'traffic' offence date you can look into if the car existed and also you can also work out if the 'non-traffic' offence of failing to respond to the paperwork request was within time limits from the alleged 'traffic' offence - as Old Snowy.

 

The Magistrates may not even know the date of the alleged 'traffic' offence - they were not asked to decide on the rights or wrongs of that, just the failure to provide information by a later date.

[sailor sam]

Sorry Tony I don't 100% agree. If the car didn't exiist at the time of the alleged offence it the follows that the OP cannot be guilty of any offence as it could be the case that his VRM has been cloned, so it is relevant. Obvioulsy he needs to follow Old snowy's advice because he needs to explain why he failed to provide the information. But at some point, the date of the alleged offence will need to be established so that either a prosecution can be made or it can be shown that the alleged offence took place after the car was written off. So yes, there could be two seperate issues here but if the actual offence couldn't of been committed by the OP then it should follow that a prosecution shouldn't happen.

[Old Snowy]

Sorry Tony I don't 100% agree. If the car didn't exist at the time of the alleged offence it the follows that the OP cannot be guilty of any offence as it could be the case that his VRM has been cloned, so it is relevant. Obviously he needs to follow Old snowy's advice because he needs to explain why he failed to provide the information. But at some point, the date of the alleged offence will need to be established so that either a prosecution can be made or it can be shown that the alleged offence took place after the car was written off. So yes, there could be two seperate issues here but if the actual offence couldn't of been committed by the OP then it should follow that a prosecution shouldn't happen.

The existence of the motor vehicle at the time that a s.172 requirement was made of the OP is irrelevant. If, of course it did not exist at the time of the originating motoring offence (for which the s.172 was issued to identify the driver of) then I would agree that the issue of cloning may figure in the equation.

 

In my initial post - poorly worded I acknowledge - I endeavoured to show that even though the OP had scrapped the car in April it is entirely conceivable that the originating motoring offence had taken place before the OP disposed of the vehicle. Indeed, it is even conceivable that the offence had taken place some months before as although there is a 14-day time limit within which a Notice of Intended Prosecution must be served (albeit that this limit applies only the first of any chain of NIP's) following a specified offence there is no time limit within which a s.172 requirement is made.

 

As I also explained there is a simple process the OP should follow that will reset the situation to point of a summons being issued. If he had no knowledge of the case then he can quite properly ask to swear a statutory declaration at his local Magistrates Court. When that document is sent to Blackburn then the case will with be withdrawn, the prosecution contacted and asked if they wish to reinstitute proceedings by issuing another summons.

 

Given that the OP was not served with a s.172 requirement and could not therefore reply to it in any way let along within the 28-day limit, he has a statutory defence to the matter [set out in s.172(7)(b) Road Traffic Act 1988 - to be precise]. As in all likelihood the originating offence has swung well past its statute of limitation the s.172 is now somewhat redundant. Although in the theory the prosecution could re-issue a s.172 it would be pointless and I think as the OP has heard nothing whatsoever it is safe to assume that the originating offence was not a serious one that is not subject of the 6-month cut-off.

 

The OP should make moves to obtain the statutory declaration as soon as possible. It must in any event be applied for within 21-days of the matter coming to his attention. If he does not take this action I would respectfully suggest that he will quickly discover the distinct disadvantages of having an MS90 endorsement on his licence and may even disocver that when he declares it to his current insurers that they will revoke his existing policy. MS90's are becoming very unpopular amongst insurers.

 

Summarising then, apply for (it means making an appointment to then go in and swear the statutory declaration) and make sure you supply your local Magistrates Court with Blackburn's case reference.

 

Everything else is secondary at this stage. Your time to reset the clock is running out and should be your primary focus at the moment.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Old Snowy

[pcr1]

Is it just me, or is it interesting to be done for failing to furnish about 14+28 days after the car was "written off"? Is there an elephant in the room!?

[Tony P]

Is it just me, or is it interesting to be done for failing to furnish about 14+28 days after the car was "written off"?

We don't yet know Day One in the calculation.

It must still be an offence 'to provide' driver details even if the car is scrapped between the originating alleged offence and the s172 Request.

 

Scrapping a car if it sets off a speed camera flash, however appealing a loophole it may sound, will not escape the consequences of that speeding.

 

Apart from urgently getting the Statutory Declaration underway, what we need to know from the OP is what was the date of the originating alleged 'motoring' offence. -

- If this was after the scrapping the case needs to be re-heard with evidence of the scrapping.

- If this was before the scrapping we can extrapolate legal time periods to see if the 'paperwork' offence of 4 June was within time limits of the originating alleged 'traffic' offence.

[pcr1]

We don't yet know Day One in the calculation.

 

Oh, I know, I was just pondering the idea that the date of offence might be the same day the car got "written off", if you know what I mean.