Jump to content


Dodgeball

Stat Dec and its time limits - Discussion

Recommended Posts

Think it is all pretty much on topic?

 Any way. No I am afraid it is the opposite. The court officer will have to put the application before a Majistrate before the offence can be heard.

 

Section 14

"on the application of the accused it appears to a magistrates’ court (which for this purpose may be composed of a single justice) that it was not reasonable to expect the accused to serve such a statutory declaration as is mentioned in subsection (1) above within the period allowed by that subsection, the court may accept service of such a declaration by the accused after that period has expired; and a statutory declaration accepted under this subsection shall be deemed to have been served as required by that subsection."

 

17 hours ago, Manxman in exile said:

 

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how your original response addresses the OP's question?

 

Don't be sorry, just read the thread.

 

The answer here was in reply to an excellent question raised other members about the time barr. I don't see how your criticism helps either TBH.

 

I am going to address this again as it is important.

 

"OP - AIUI you are doing a Stat Dec under oath on Wednesday?  So long as you are doing this within 21 days of learning of the conviction(s), my understanding is that the court has to accept it.  If it's outside 21 days they have discretion to accept it.  This in effect negates the conviction(s)." 

 

This is 1000% wrong, a declaration is not proof positive it is merely sworn testimony. A court is entitled to question it,of course.

 

Otherwise it would be easy for all liars to get out of anything.

Edited by Dodgeball

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

Think it is all pretty much on topic?

 Any way. No I am afraid it is the opposite. The court officer will have to put the application before a Majistrate before the offence can be heard.

on the application of the accused it appears to a magistrates’ court (which for this purpose may be composed of a single justice) that it was not reasonable to expect the accused to serve such a statutory declaration as is mentioned in subsection (1) above within the period allowed by that subsection, the court may accept service of such a declaration by the accused after that period has expired; and a statutory declaration accepted under this subsection shall be deemed to have been served as required by that subsection.

 

I can't see where the bit I assume you are quoting from appears earlier in the thread?  It seems to me simply to be confirming what I posted, namely that after 21 days the court has discretion whether or not to accept a statutory declaration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually you didn't say the court has discretion did you?

 

"OP - AIUI you are doing a Stat Dec under oath on Wednesday?  So long as you are doing this within 21 days of learning of the conviction(s), my understanding is that the court has to accept it.

 

Anyway I will let you continue, op ignore this poster please.

 


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

I am going to address this again as it is important.

 

"OP - AIUI you are doing a Stat Dec under oath on Wednesday?  So long as you are doing this within 21 days of learning of the conviction(s), my understanding is that the court has to accept it.  If it's outside 21 days they have discretion to accept it.  This in effect negates the conviction(s)." 

 

This is 1000% wrong, a declaration is not proof positive it is merely sworn testimony. A court is entitled to question it,of course.

 

Otherwise it would be easy for all liars to get out of anything.

 

OP - do as Dodgeball suggests and bring along to the stat dec whatever evidence you have to support that you never received the original documents.  I think if you do the stat dec within the 21 days the court will simply accept it.  Dodgeball disagrees with that and thinks the court will require supporting evidence that what you declare is true.  Obviously it is more prudent to be safe rather than sorry, so bring evidence.  If you are outside 21 days, they may reject it anyway.

 

Weigh up the responses you've had, do a bit more research (if you teach law) and make your own mind up what to do.

Edited by Manxman in exile
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

Actually you didn't say the court has discretion did you?

 

"OP - AIUI you are doing a Stat Dec under oath on Wednesday?  So long as you are doing this within 21 days of learning of the conviction(s), my understanding is that the court has to accept it.

 

Anyway I will let you continue, op ignore this poster please.

 

 

I did say the court has discretion but not in the context you are quoting.

 

Your view seems to be that the court may question the OP regarding their stat dec and that the court may decide to reject it.  My view is that the court will accept the stat dec so long as it is made within 21 days.  If I'm wrong, then it would certainly be prudent of the OP to bring along evidence to support that they never received a NIP/summons/notice of conviction.  I have no problem with that.

 

I was replying to your post responding to mine that the thread had seemed to wander a bit off-topic.  In your post you said that it was on topic and seemed to quote some text (no reference) to support that.  My point was that I could find no mention of what you quoted  earlier in the thread, and that in any case, what you quoted simply agreed with my earlier comment that after 21 days the court had discretion whether to accept or reject the stat dec.

 

The advice the OP needs is about how to plead to the speeding and failure to identify charges after the stat.dec is accepted.  I'm more than happy for the OP to follow your advice and to ignore my suggestions.

 

OP - I'll only add that you may also want to try posting on pepipoo - note that they won't accept Hotmail addresses: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=5

 

Feel free to ignore this suggestion too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the OP

I am sorry for the interjection of these two people. Please just ignore them

 

They do this every now and then, until they get banned. They are from a Freeman of the Land site, with some very peculiar ideas indeed.

We tend not to encourage them with argument.

 

If you have any questions, or feel you need clarification ,please PM me or the team and someone will answer on the thread. We are not allowed to answer via PM.

 

Peter

 

 

 

 


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points.

 

Under no circumstances should you plead guilty to speeding without this assurance.

They have no evidence that you were driving and you cannot be convicted of that offence unless you plead guilty.

Doing so is a possible route to nine points.

 

The court knows she was not driving, she is liable because she will not reveal the person who was and also owned the car., if she shows she did not own it there is no case to answer.

She should know that pleading guilty will result in a significant reduction to the fine. 


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The court will often do the second hearing on the same day.

 

and What is this?

 

Once the SD has been made, if you make it in court it is standard practice in most areas now is for you to be asked how to plead to the original offences immediately afterwards. If so, you should offer to plead guilty to the speeding offence only on the condition that the “Fail to Supply Driver’s Details” (FtS) is dropped.

 

I am unsure what she would be doing there at all, as she was not driving. Are you suggesting she lie about driving the car?

 

Pure Nonesense.

How about just telling the truth.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's happened to the offensive and wholly unwarranted post from Dodgeball alleging that me and Man in the Middle are from a Freeman on the Land website and advising the OP to ignore us?

 

If it's been removed by the site then I suggest the site should also review the rest of the "advice" he has given the OP in this thread, which I think is plain wrong 

 

I also find insulting Dodgeball's advice to the OP in #24 to "ignore" me, and their earlier (ludicrous!) suggestion that I was "1000%" wrong.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then this

 

"If the only reason the SD could not be made in time was that the court could not provide an earlier appointment, the Declaration will be accepted. That is the only time limit on any of this. All other time limits are irrelevant. Acceptance of the SD depends only on how long previously you learned of your conviction and nothing else".

 

The OP said

The first I became aware of the offence and court proceedings was yesterday when an ex neighbour and friend called to say that bailiffs had turned up demanding £1100 (court fine of £811 + enforcement fehen this


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

The court will often do the second hearing on the same day.

 

and What is this?

 

Once the SD has been made, if you make it in court it is standard practice in most areas now is for you to be asked how to plead to the original offences immediately afterwards. If so, you should offer to plead guilty to the speeding offence only on the condition that the “Fail to Supply Driver’s Details” (FtS) is dropped.

 

I am unsure what she would be doing there at all, as she was not driving. Are you suggesting she lie about driving the car?

 

Pure Nonesense.

How about just telling the truth.

 

I suggest you re-read the thread.  I dealt with this in #18.

 

OP - read the thread again and decide which responses you want to rely on.

 

I get bored banging my head against a wall...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP says "...when I committed the speeding offence..." in #6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem here, is that section 14 is generally misunderstood.

 

I have been meaning to write an explanation for some time, perhaps I will.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I am unsure what she would be doing there at all, as she was not driving.

Quote

Yes I was the owner and driver when I committed the speeding offence.

DODGEBALL - Read the thread (particularly what the OP has said). Find out what the law is (particularly the Magistrates’ Court Act in respect to Statutory Declarations and the Statutes relating to Speeding and Section 172 of the RTA) and what the normal court process is relating to them. Then, and only then then, let us know what you think. Meantime I suggest you do not confuse the OP. She has enough problems as it is and could do without further confusion.

JEN - I suggest you take note of what I and Manxman have said. It is all you need to know. I fear you are being confused and misled by others. I don't know why.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Man in the middle said:

DODGEBALL - Read the thread (particularly what the OP has said). Find out what the law is (particularly the Magistrates’ Court Act in respect to Statutory Declarations and the Statutes relating to Speeding and Section 172 of the RTA) and what the normal court process is relating to them. Then, and only then then, let us know what you think. Meantime I suggest you do not confuse the OP. She has enough problems as it is and could do without further confusion.

JEN - I suggest you take note of what I and Manxman have said. It is all you need to know. I fear you are being confused and misled by others. I don't know why.

 

 

 

It is because dodgeball suspects us both of being Freeman on the Land nutters!  (I read the post before it was removed...)

 

It's the first time I've heard a FMOTL argument based on a statutory provision rather than common law.

Edited by Manxman in exile
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Freemen of the Land would suggest that the court has no jurisdiction to deal with these offences at all. I have witnessed FOTL in court and their philosophy has nothing to do with any of this. I'm suggesting nothing at all to do with FOTL and my advice is simply to follow the law and the usual processes which are  seen every day in Magistrates' Courts throughout England and Wales. Quite why Dodgeball seeks to confuse the OP in such a way is a mystery.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought i went to lengths to see that did not happen   Andy.'

 

I just did not want the OP going away with the idea that the SB was A done deal, as we know they are rejected every day.

The court will want to ensure the reply was sent within 21 days of discovery.

 

 


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dodgeball said:

I just did not want the OP going away with the idea that the SB was A done deal, as we know they are rejected every day.

 

We know of no such thing so please don't unnecessarily worry the OP. On the contrary what we do know is that the court has no discretion but to hear the Statutory Declaration provided it is made within 21 days of learning about the conviction (with which the OP will be compliant) and it has no power to "reject" it once it has been heard. It is simply witnessing the declaration as it is made. It has no authority to enquire into the veracity or otherwise of the declaration. The only discretion is has is whether to hear the SD if it is to be made outside the 21 days since learning of the conviction but if it is decided to hear it then it must be heard unchallenged in the same way.

 

Hearing an SD is not an enquiry into the circumstances that led to it having to be made nor is it concerned with the circumstances of the original offence(s).  It removes the conviction, voids any penalties (both financial and anciliary such as points or disqualification) and allows the prosecution to recommence proceedings as they think fit. In that respect it is very much a "done deal" and the OP should not be given the impression that she will be grilled in court. That may come later when the original offences are dealt with but not until the SD has been made.

 

3 hours ago, Dodgeball said:

The court will want to ensure the reply was sent within 21 days of discovery

 

I don't know what "reply" you are speaking of but no such enquiries will be made. All she has to do is to swear (as part of the SD) when and how she learned of her conviction.

 

I have never heard of an SD being "rejected" for the simple reason that the person or body hearing it has no discretion to do so. The OP has to go to court on Wednesday and it really doesn't help to bandy about such misleading information.

Edited by Man in the middle
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know of no such thing so please don't unnecessarily worry the OP. On the contrary what we do know is that the court has no discretion but to hear the Statutory Declaration provided it is made within 21 days of learning about the conviction (with which the OP will be compliant) and it has no power to "reject" it once it has been heard

 

 

So why bother hearing it?

Have a look on here.

How would the court know it was in 21 days?

 

We have had cases where the poster sent a application saying they only heard about the case 21 days ago, and the court has presented letters sent by the defendant to the court just after the hearing. So your saying in such a case the defendants application wont be thrown out. ?

 

Sorry no


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, Andy's warning. Start a thread in the discussion , when I get time I will explain the legalities to you.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would the court know it was in 21 days?

 

As has been stated several times by Man in the middle, this is a Statutory Declaration, not a court hearing. The applicant takes an oath or affirms according to preference, that the application, including their first becoming aware of the prior hearing, in front of the Justices. The circumstances of why this comes about has absolutely no bearing on the SD.

 

You do seem to be confusing an SD with a set aside order at the County Court where the judge would need to be satisfied that there is a good reason for the judgement to be set aside and also that there is a realistic prospect of a defence.

 

The SD could be made at a solicitor's or Notary Public's office in just the same way. (usually at a small cost)

Look upon it as  similar to the anti-money laundering declaration when you sell a house. 

 

 

  • Like 1

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dodgeball said:

So why bother hearing it?

 

I'm not going to continually argue this point.

 

The purpose of a court hearing a Statutory Declaration is to verify that it has been made, not to verify its truth. An SD is not an "application".  It is a declaration and it can be made before a court, a solicitor or a Commissioner for Oaths. None of these would make any enquiries about the veracity of the declaration. It is not an inquisitorial or adversarial process and the person hearing the declaration does not have to be concerned with its truth (or otherwise). The applicant needs to bring no documentation to support their declaration and would not normally be questioned on it unless there was anything about which the person hearing it was unclear. Before a declaration is made in a Magistrates' Court the Court's Legal Advisor will make sure that any potential problems are resolved before the Magistrates hear it.  

 

Statutory Declarations are made for all sorts of reasons (not necessarily just to have a criminal conviction set aside) and those hearing them do not routinely question the person making them on the truth of their declaration. I don't quite understand the situation you describe. When a court hears an SD there is no reason for it to have any documentation associated with the case to hand. The person making the declaration turns up, fills in the form under the guidance of the court's Legal Advisor and is then asked to make that declaration before the Bench.

 

In this particular OP's case there is absolutely no reason why she should be questioned on her declaration. It is of the type made in courts up and down the country every day. It is true that when answering questions on a forum like this it is important to warn posters of all reasonable eventualities. But it is also important not to unduly worry them by recounting events (such as that you mention above) that have virtually zero possibility of occurring.

 

Unless you have anything new or useful to add I think I've said all I can. It's up to the OP who and what she believes. 

 

 

Edited by Man in the middle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dodgeball said:

Anyway, Andy's warning. Start a thread in the discussion , when I get time I will explain the legalities to you.

 

Sorry, I've only just noted the above. I think you can do that in this thread without fear of the moderator's sword falling. Perhaps firstly you could explain how the court in this particular case will have reason to believe that the OP would not be telling the truth in her declaration. Then, I'm sure the OP would be interested in the legalities you describe (as would I). In particular perhaps you can point us to the legislation that determines that a person hearing a Statutory Declaration can reject it if they believe it is untrue. That way the OP can be properly prepared for that eventuality which you seem to believe has a good chance of occurring.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gick said:

How would the court know it was in 21 days?

 

As has been stated several times by Man in the middle, this is a Statutory Declaration, not a court hearing. The applicant takes an oath or affirms according to preference, that the application, including their first becoming aware of the prior hearing, in front of the Justices. The circumstances of why this comes about has absolutely no bearing on the SD.

 

You do seem to be confusing an SD with a set aside order at the County Court where the judge would need to be satisfied that there is a good reason for the judgement to be set aside and also that there is a realistic prospect of a defence.

 

The SD could be made at a solicitor's or Notary Public's office in just the same way. (usually at a small cost)

Look upon it as  similar to the anti-money laundering declaration when you sell a house. 

 

 

Nope. The court will not permit the making of the order, or if one is made it will  e discarded. It is down to the magistrate. He cannot do this without looking at an application I think you are getting confused frankly. There are applications where there is  no option for the court,  but those would be thhe ones within 21 days of the hearing. For obvious reasons. 

The section is not worded well so you have to find where it came from. I will show you, but  not on this thread.

 

Play  nice boys

Peter


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fully cognisant with the legislation, as is Man in the middle. You are wrong and repeating your wrong advice ad nauseum will not make it right.

  • Like 2

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...