That still leaves it unclear if:
a) you “made a mistake” and accidentally bought the wrong ticket (only to Three Bridges), or
b) You had a “moment of very poor judgement” and deliberately bought a ‘short ticket’
It can’t be both.
Climb off the fence you are sitting on, it’ll give you splinters............ at the moment you are trying to hedge your bets but it is obvious that is what you are doing, and as a result: why should they believe the rest (expressions of regret, won’t do it again, sole income earner who will lose their job, etc.)
Email and call your local councillor, their details should be on Google. Just explain everything to them and they will have the bailiffs off your back in short order.
Do it now, and this could be resolved by tomorrow.
Your latest ramblings make no sense in relation to the issue (which is whether a person hearing an SD can question the maker as to its truthfulness and reject the declaration if they are not satisfied as such).
It's not within 21 days of the hearing it's within 21 days of learning of the conviction of which they were unaware. I don't know what it is you are reading or are referring to but there is no "debtor" involved in an SD that is made to have a conviction set aside. When an SD is heard in court the only officers involved are the court's Legal Advisor and the Magistrates themselves.
I’ve just been looking back at the original post which started all this off to ensure I wasn’t going mad. I’m pleased to say I don’t think I am. Instead I am of the opinion that you did not properly grasp what originally happened to the OP and compounded that by providing incorrect, misleading and confusing advice whilst plucking bits of irrelevant legislation from thin air randomly when you commented. Here’s a few of your quotes and my comments for you to consider.
The OP said no such thing. She said she had moved three years earlier. For some reason unknown, her change of address was not recorded by the DVLA. She said she was happy to accept the speeding allegation. This indicated she was driving (a fact she confirmed absolutely soon afterwards). Nowhere did she ever say she was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time.
So, from advice to plead Not Guilty to advice to plead Guilty inside two hours, with no new or additional information provided. Still you mention somebody else being the driver.
What is an “out of time statement” and where and when was one ever mentioned?
Then from the OP:
The cause of any confusion was your comments. She said from the outset that she did not live at her old address when the offence was committed (in fact she went to some lengths to explain that was why she did not receive the court papers). Nowhere did she suggest she was not the driver nor that she could not or would not disclose who was.
No it isn’t. A Statutory Declaration voids the original conviction as if it never happened. Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Court Act is not involved with the resurrection of proceedings following an SD. That Section grants the Magistrates powers to re-open cases to rectify mistakes, etc. There has been no mistake here, the Magistrates will not be called upon to re-open the case and could not prevent it being revisited even if they wanted to.
Then we set off into the intricacies of the Statutory Declaration process which is covered above.
I’m not surprised the OP in this particular case became confused. Her matter is straightforward enough (for those who know the law and the process). In summary:
She thought the DVLA had her vehicle registered at her new address but they hadn’t;
Her vehicle (with her driving) was detected speeding;
She (unsurprisingly) did not receive the notification of that offence or the request for driver’s details;
She obviously didn’t reply to that request, she was prosecuted for it, convicted in her absence and without her knowledge.
Happens every day and simple to deal with.
Unfortunately, not when you became involved it isn't. Firstly you grasped the wrong end of the stick by assuming she was not the owner and/or the driver. You advised her to plead Not Guilty on that basis. Then, when you had grasped some idea of what had really happened you suggested she plead guilty to the S172 offence purely on the basis she had moved and the speeding information was sent to her old address. Very poor advice. Then you scared her witless by incorrectly suggesting there was a chance her SD would be rejected if it was thought her declaration may be untruthful. There also followed discussions about the six month time limit for prosecutions and the 21 day limit for SDs to be accepted unconditionally (both totally irrelevant).
I don’t suppose you will accept any of these criticisms but whether you do or not you clearly caused the OP considerable confusion and probably distress. My comments are not based on something I've heard on the net or on barroom (sic) knowledge. They are based on my knowledge of the law and of Magistrates' Court procedures. It's obvious you will pay no heed to me so when I see any such clearly misleading information provided to an OP by you in this section in future I will simply report it to the site's administrators.
Don't touch them owe me £500 since January 2019 make excuse after excuse. Seem they always have software problems sending money out. Keep saying they will call back or email nothing been chasing it now for 6 mths the phone staff always have the same banter we will chase it up and get back to you then nothing!