Found points on my licence i knew nothing about.

[kouri123]

Brief description ,

I went away on holiday in October 2019

came back to the letter attached.

States that I was speeding in December 2018 

(I was actually out of the country on the date too).

 

It says that I may not have received original correspondence, so they are sending the SJPN again for me to fill in.

 

I filled the form in explaining that I was out of the country at the time and had no idea of this offence until October 2019.

I could not hand on heart say who was driving at the time as it could have been 3 or 4 family members who had access to the car and when asking them they also said they were not sure who if any of them it would have been.

 

a month has gone since sending this form back

have had no response from the court.

 

Whilst in work I was requested to do a DAVIS check on my licence and then it came up with me being given 6 points back in April and failing to name the driver.

 

This now means I have given my insurance company mis leading information saying I have no points ,

my other big problem is that even though the police said they sent the courts the information and I have been found guilty of the offence in my absence I have had no communication from the courts saying I was being given points or fined (which I would imagine I would be).

 

The car in question was registered to me at my current address, there is no confusion of moving addresses in this time.

 

I have heard stories of bailiffs turning up regarding matters like this and have a good credit history I don't want destroyed.

 

Do I need to get a solicitor involved in this and if I win the case can I claim the costs back ???

 

 

police letter.pdf

[Manxman in exile]

I'm a bit confused.

 

You say your licence shows six points from April (2019?) for the offence of failing to identify the driver.  But the letter from the police dated 7 October 2019 is offering you the chance to plead again via SJPN?  What offence does that letter relate to?  I'm assuming it was the failure to identify as it's far too late to try to prosecute for the speeding, but you've already received the six points for failing to identify ie been convicted in your absence.

 

When did you first learn that you'd been convicted?  From that date you have 21 (I think) days to do a "Statutory Declaration" stating that you did not know of the proceedings against you.  You need to swear this declaration on oath either in court or at a solicitors.  The effect of the declaration is to cancel your conviction and then they'll (probably) start proceedings against you again for failure to identify.  AIUI the court has discretion to accept a declaration after 21 days, but they don't have to.

 

It's possible that you were not involved in the original speeding offence, but if they sent you a s.172 request you needed to respond either identifying the driver or explaining why you are not involved.  Do you know why you didn't receive a 172 request to name the driver?  Have you a history of mail not being delivered to you?

 

Also, do you know why the police think you may not have received the original documentation?  Have you been in contact with them and told them this?

 

It all seems a bit strange to me.

 

I think you need to wait for the poster Man in the Middle to read this thread as he's more knowledgeable than me in these matters.

[kouri123]

The 1st I knew about any offence was in October 2019 and believe the letter from police was saying that they believe I did not receive the 1st one sent out.

 

I was not in the country on date of offence which was December 5th 2018, if I had received ANY communication regarding the offence at the time I would probably been able to narrow down who was driving.

 

i have had no other communication of this offence other than this letter saying I should either lead guilty or send the forms to the court pleading not guilty which. Have about 4 weeks ago but had no reply.

 

The latest SJPN sent on 07/10/2019 states as charges on it

1) speeding

2)fail to give information relating to the identification of the driver.

 

It states I have 21 days to plead guilty or not guilty to these charges.

 

I have sent back within that time frame saying not guilty and explained this letter is 1st time I have known of this offence.

 

I still am waiting for a response, but will ring them today and update on here

[Manxman in exile]

So, there's no explanation why the first you heard of this was October this year.  Your V5C is uptodate with the correct address and there've been no changes of address etc?  (NB - changing your licence's address does not change the V5C address).

 

1.  I think you've done the right thing by pleading not guilty to both offences (but see next paragraph).  It'll then drop out of the SJPN process and go to court.  On the day at court, you seek out the traffic offence prosecutor and offer to plead guilty to the speeding if (and only if) they drop the failure to identify charge.  (The failure to identify is a more serious charge than the speeding).

 

AIUI, that is what usually happens.  Two complicating factors for you are (a) if you know you couldn't have been driving for the original speeding offence, you may well be committing a more serious criminal offence by pleading guilty to it.  You really need to be able to identify the driver from last December.  (b) there might be an issue around whether the speeding charge has been brought against you in time.  But as their October letter is asking you to plead in respect of it, I assume it must(?) have been.

 

2.  I do not understand why on earth the police have written to you at all.  According to your driving licence you've already been convicted of failing to identify and been given six points.  Have you not received any notification of a fine or had the bailiffs chasing you?  Having been convicted, I'm surprised the police should be so compassionate as to give you a second chance.  Why do they think you've not received original documentation?  Who has told them?

 

What would worry me is if the original conviction still stands and your window for doing a statutory declaration (21 days) is dwindling, or has dwindled, away....

 

You could try 'phoning the police and ask whether the original conviction still stands, and if it does, why are they asking you to plead again if you've already been convicted?  I can't see that you lose anything by doing that, but others may advise differently.

 

It all seems very odd to me.  You may be well advised to speak to a solicitor.  I'll see if I can get some other posters to respond as well.

 

***  Are you sure that the conviction and points already on your licence relate to the same offence the police are now asking you to plead on?  Could they be different?

[Man in the middle]

Like Manxman, I find this very mysterious.

 

First of all, let’s work on the assumption that only one allegation of speeding is involved.

 

If that was on 5^th December, let’s say that a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) and an accompanying request to name the driver (a “S172 notice) was sent within a week, say by 12^th.

 

This would have been deemed served on you on Friday 14^th.

You would have until January 11^th to respond.

If you didn’t it is about right that court action would be initiated some time in March

(most areas send a reminder and they usually give the Registered Keeper another couple of weeks to respond).

 

So it seems quite likely that the conviction you have seen on your licence stems from that allegation and that it was heard in court in April.

 

As far as the police are concerned that matter is done and dusted.

 

You failed to respond to their request,

they prosecuted you for that failure and you were convicted and sentenced.

 

I imagine you owe the court £881.

That would be a fine of £660 (1.5 weeks’ net income based on a default figure of £440pw), £66 “Victim Surcharge” and £85 prosecution costs.

 

I’m surprised no attempt has been made to recover that sum from you.

 

But now it gets puzzling.

It seems that somebody has prompted the police to write to you.

 

I’ve no idea why that should be and I think you would be well advised to find out why they have sent the 7^th October letter to you.

 

But it gets worse.

It now seems, from what you say, that they are prosecuting you again for an offence for which you have already been convicted and sentenced!

 

Is that correct, or are the SJ papers you have been sent simply a copy of those which you did not receive for the April hearing?

 

If indeed they do intend prosecuting you again you should tread carefully.

 

As Manxman suggests, you may have been able to do a “deal” to get the S172 charge dropped in return for pleading guilty to speeding. But you cannot do that as you are sure you were not the driver.

 

I think you need to find out:

(1) Why did they send you the 7th October letter? What makes them believe you were not in receipt of the earlier paperwork?

 

(2) Why are they apparently prosecuting you again for an offence for which you have already been convicted and sentenced (if indeed that is what they are doing)?

 

There is quite a bit of correspondence which takes place between being detected allegedly speeding and a court case.

 

It seems very odd that you received none of this but you did get the 7th October letter.

 

If you do engage a solicitor it will cost you a tidy sum and you are unlikely to be awarded all of your costs (you may not be awarded any at all, depending on the outcome).

 

I would make those enquiries as a matter of urgency before anything else.

 

[Manxman in exile]

^^^  What Man in the middle says.

 

A further complication re any possible "plea bargain" is that it must be too late now to name the driver from last December because it'll be too late to prosecute them*. 

 

That means that the only prospect they have of a conviction is to prosecute you for the failure to identify - the speeding is dead in the water.

 

  I believe your only defence would be to prove that you never received the NIP/request to name the driver, but it is extremely difficult to get courts to accept this defence otherwise everybody would use it. 

 

The police will have evidence that the NIP/request was sent out on such and such a date and it is legally presumed to have been delivered two days later, unless you can prove otherwise.

 

MITM hasn't mentioned a statutory declaration, but I presume he thinks you need to find out if the April conviction still stands first.  But don't forget about it - you may need it.

 

*They only have six months from the date of the offence to initiate proceedings against the nominated driver

[Manxman in exile]

Insurance

 

Just realised this has not been addressed.

 

Presumably you didn't know about the conviction when you renewed so answered honestly no points etc?

 

Check T&Cs to see what you have to tell them.  May not be clear cut.  You need to find out if the original conviction stands.  Can you contact the court that convicted you and ask?  If you contact the police about the October letter, ask them.

 

Insurance can be tricky.  (Don't want to scare you but there's a post on Money Saving Expert where somebody failed to declare points and had their insurance voided).  You need to get this right.  I would post on the insurance board.  Say you've already posted here about the conviction, and that you only want advice about what to tell your insurer.  Point out you've got a conviction and points on your licence that you didn't know about when renewing, and you're not sure if the conviction still stands anyway.

[Manxman in exile]

Too late to edit my previous post, but the problem you have is that the conviction and points are still showing against your licence.  Or I presume they still are.  You need to get this resolved one way or another before your insurer becomes aware of them.  Don't have any accidents before you do!

[Man in the middle]

Yes there is a way to have your earlier conviction made void. But it would be a good idea to find out the answer to the two questions I posed in my earlier post.

[kouri123]

Hi all

          I spoke to the courts earlier today

 

they advised me that the points placed on my licence were removed in October 2019, and that a court date is set for November 26th.

 

Guess what ???

I had not been given that info either.

 

The courts were very helpful and explained to me that everything had been sent to my previous address (which I have not lived in or owned for 5 years)

 

The car in question was registered in March 2016 and I have owned since new and has never been registered to my old address.

I have proof of this down to the point of not taxing the car March 2017 as the car was zero tax I did not realise I still had to go online and tax it, the summons for that was sent to my current home address. 

 

it is very strange that the police directed everything to my previous address.

 

i then contacted the police on the number given by the courts and was told to forward proof I was out of country at time of offence for them to look at, the police officer was very understanding and quite helpful giving the information.

 

I have to e mail her tomorrow and will give an update when I know more as this previous address thing is really confusing !!!

 

[Manxman in exile]

That sounds promising.

 

If I were you I'd check my licence online to confirm that the points and conviction have disappeared.  That's re your insurance.

 

Keep an eye on the court date of 26 November.  If they accept you were out of the country you should be ok for the speeding, but you may still be open to a failure to identify prosecution - it depends why you didn't receive the original NIP.

 

You may be contacted by the police to say both charges have been dropped and that the earlier convictions have been cancelled.  I'd want this in writing.  Keep chasing them, but if you don't hear any more, I'd make sure I was at court on the 26th.  You don't want to be in convicted in your absence again because of some admin. cockup.  Make sure the failure to identify is dropped.

 

Make sure you have copies of all correspondence and a note of 'phone calls just in case your insurers have any queries about this - it's a very unusual situation.  (Whether you should be informing them about all this, I simply don't know.  You've been convicted but didn't know about it, and now it appears to have been erased.  I'm a very cautious belt and braces guy, so I'd ask on the insurance board what you should do.  Tell your insurers everything or keep quiet about it?  Getting it wrong could be expensive).

 

 

[aesmith]

I think it's worth double checking the addresses on the car's registration document, and on driving licence.  Just in case there's some reason which mail might not have reached you.   Have you been sent any copies of prior correspondence, and if so was the name and address all in order?

[kouri123]

This is what I have received after sending proof I was out of the country at time of speeding offence

 

I still have no idea why they sent to my previous address when the car had never been registered there .

Also I had a fine on the car at my current address when the car was one year old as I had forgotten to tax it

(zero tax so didn't realize i still had to go on line and tax)

 

nv let.pdf

[Manxman in exile]

Which "matter" is "being withdrawn"?  What's the "next hearing"?

 

I suppose it clearly says you don't need to do any thing, but about what?

 

I suppose I'm just nit-picking, but without knowing what preceded that email it's not very clear (to me) or informative.

[Peterbard]

 the letter means that all the pontificating you have heard from Maximouse and co. was just a figment, all they wanted was the proof you provided.

 

An easy task made difficult.

 

Answer. Just send proof you were out of the country END

[Man in the middle]

1 hour ago, Dodgeball said:

Answer. Just send proof you were out of the country END

 

Yes, a great pity you did not come forth with that pearl of wisdom a little earlier. Still better late than never.

 

The "pontificating" you mention was not a figment. It was perfectly sound advice based on what was known.

 

Of course proving the OP was out of the country does not absolve his responsibilities under S172 if he is the Registered Keeper.

 

His contention that his earlier letter stated he was speeding is almost certainly incorrect.

 

The police do not know who was driving so cannot accuse anybody of speeding. What it probably said was that his vehicle was detected speeding and it falls to him to name the driver. Being out of the country does not excuse that responsibility.

 

There's lots of unknowns in this, not the least of which being how his earlier conviction was set aside as only a court can set aside a conviction.

 

Clearly something out of the ordinary has occurred but that's water under the bridge.

 

However to give the impression that being out of the country is a perfectly reasonable and routine defence to a S172 charge is, not unusually for you, totally misleading.

 

Of course every case turns on its own merits but if you contend that your advice is sound  you may care to look up the case of Whiteside vs DPP (2011).

 

Mr Whiteside was in a similar position to the OP, being out of the country when a S172 notice was served on him.

 

He contended that he could not be guilty of failing to respond to the notice as he had not seen it. The High Court ruled against him. Part of their ruling said this:

 

"The offence created by section 172(3) does not require knowledge on the defendant’s part that he is under an obligation to provide the specified information; ".

 

But I suppose that's just a "figment" as well. 

[honeybee13]

Dodgeball, we don't want to derail this thread with a discussion on trolling so I've removed some posts.

 

If you suspect troll activity, then please let the site team know and we'll investigate.

[Peterbard]

An NIP and a request to name the driver are two different notices . 

 

The time period for the new hearing, would be six months from the prosecution receiving the evidence in the initial case

 

The burden of proof would be on the op but only on balance of probability.

[Man in the middle]

 

42 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

The time period for the new hearing, would be six months from the prosecution receiving the evidence in the initial case

 

The  S172 offence would have been committed 28 days after the S172 request was served on the recipient. The six month time limit to begin proceedings begins from that date. If an SD was to be performed to set aside (or "void" if you prefer) an earlier conviction there is no time limit on any new hearing to bring the matter again as proceedings would have already begun. There is no time limit on how long the proceedings must take to conclude.

 

However, all academic because for a reason we are not aware of, proceedings were discontinued. The most puzzling thing is that the police, in the first letter that the OP posted, stated "It has recently been identified that you may not have received the original documentation". Quite how or why they identified that is a mystery but I guess we'll never find out and it doesn't matter anyway.

[Peterbard]

he  S172 offence would have been committed 28 days after the S172 request was served on the recipient. The six month time limit to begin proceedings begins from that date.

 

AHA, so that would be when the prosecution would be notified. 

.

A successful SD does not remove the original COA or enforcement date details  The action start date is at this point.

 

If it is "relevant enough to say, then its relevant enough to be corrected.

 

I agree regarding the original letter, quite odd.

[Peterbard]

I did think you were going to challenge the burden of proof point.

[Man in the middle]

56 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

I did think you were going to challenge the burden of proof point.

 

Not at all. If the defendant presents a statutory defence to an offence for which he would otherwise be convicted then the burden rests on him to prove that defence. Anything that the defendant has to prove is always to the lower level "on the balance of probabilities".

[Peterbard]

indeed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Man in the middle]

Man In The Middle retires for a lie down!!!!