FPN for not wearing a seatbelt

[patdavies]

Please comment on all the questions.

 

I got a FPN for not wearing a seatbelt,which i wasn't,so i told the police they were filming motorists illigaly as the camera was on top of an unmarked white transit van 500 yards in front of the police cars,these cop cars were also hidden behind parked public cars and vans when they pulled me over.I know u should be able to see a police camera van 300 yards away and it should be marked,is this right?

 

The only requirement for visibility is for a speed camera, when the proceeds will be 'netted off' to the camera partenership. In any case, it is only a guideline and is neither illegal, nor does it negate the offence if it is not clearly visible

 

The police were also filming on a road without street lights in daylight,it is illigal if they film u in the night without st lighting but is it illigal if they film u in daylight without st lights?

 

In neither case is it illegal (or even improper) to film without street lights. Even for a speed camera

 

The camera sign was square with a white background and a black border...is this illigal?...because i saw in the paper that they had to have a red border round the edge of the sign,the sign was also hidden behind a tree which u couldn't see untill u came upon it...i've been told that u have to be able to See a camera sign from 300 meters away,is this right?

 

No and no. A red border would make the sign non-prescribed, but it isn't prescriptive anyway. The 300M thing is total nonsense

 

This is the main problem,i wrote to the police and asked for the police officers statement,when i received the statement i also was sent a photocopy of the FPN that i got that day,at the bottom of the photocopy the PC as added a comment but on my original FPN that he gave me,it doesn't say anything,is this purgery?

 

No, perjury can only be committed under oath in Court. Unless the comment on the FPN is intended to mislead, it would be unlikely to be a case of attempting to pervert the course of justice anyway.

 

In all of this the Police have done nothing wrong, so your telling them that they were operating illegally probably got right up their noses. So, unsurprisingly, you've got a £30 FPN instead of a ticking off. You admit that you weren't wearing the belt anyway - just pay the ticket.

[patdavies]

This isn't a matter of,making an excuse to not pay.

The seatbelt offence is a tax and u should be able to ware it when u want.

PKea,what r u doing on this forum because nearly every1 on this site is in the same boat,trying to get off without paying a ticket for illegal reasons when they have commited an offence.

 

The real problem here is the PC as added a comment on the FPN when it isn't on my original FPN ticket,thats a lie because every PC is sworn to a section 9 statement for truth without going to court,do understand Patdavies?

 

Take a look at this link Patdavies which is about street lights then tell me if im wrong?

 

Street light loophole could wipe out thousands of speed camera fines

 

Firstly, it would be much easier to read your posts if they were posted in English rather than text-speak.

 

The seatbelt fine that you have been issued with is not a tax - it is a fine. You are legally required to wear a seat belt; in the same way that you must tax and insure your vehicle and ensure that it is in a roadworthy condition.

 

The majority of people here are not trying to get off tickets for illegal reasons. They are actually asking for (and receiving) advice about the legalities of the tickets issued. If the ticket is not legally issued, then it is void. PKea's comment is entirely reasonable

 

An FPN is not a Section 9 statement. It may form part of a section 9 statement if you take the matter to Court. Section 9 exists so that both sides in a dispute may accept the evidence in the statement without the need for the witness making the statement to attend in person. If you object to the statement, you are entitled to do so and the PC will be called as a witness in person.

 

The link that you have posted has absolutely nothing to do with being able to use cameras where there are no street lights. The case in the link is about the 30 mph limit being unenforcable due to the lack of streetlights - however they tried to enforce it. Cameras are used to enforce limits other than 30 mph, where there is no requirement for street lights.

 

So I accept your invitation - you are wrong!

[patdavies]

You asked a question and Pat explained the reasons.

Then because you said that it was correct so ask her to explain herself.

 

Him

 

Well last time I looked:rolleyes:

[patdavies]

I will rephrase my post,Please comment on all questions except for childish idiots who call names,i used to call ppl names at school.

 

Fair enough

 

You ppl dont know wat your taking about u contradict yourselves,if your PNC or FPN ticket is unlawful then it is illegal so i'll try to get away without paying even though i av committed the offence,but hold on a minute,some1 said if u committed the offence just pay the £30 and get on with your life.

Well it is the same thing with my FPN,no lighting on the st,illegal

I fail to see how the visibility of a speed camera and the absence (or otherwise) of street lighting have any bearing whatsoever on an FPN for failing to wear a seat belt

 

(your wrong PD read the link slowly next time with glasses and u will find that im right) parked speed camera van thats unmarked,illegal

 

I have read it again, slowly - and I don't need glasses. I am still right. In the case quoted, the requirement for streetlamps is to make the limit enforceable by any means. It has no bearing whatsoever on the use of speed cameras.

 

Speed cameras are only required to be highly visible if they belong to a speed camera partnership who intend to 'net off' the proceeds. There are no visibility requirements whatsoever for Police enforcement.

 

There are no requirements whatsoever for streetlamps to be present for camera enforcement to be lawful - or do you think that all motorway enforcement by camera is illegal?

 

 

and theres a comment the photocopy of my FPN that the PC has but it isnt on my FPN ticket,illegal(PKea,my FPN is the same as the PC,

This has been done to death already. An FPN is an offer to accept guilt for the offence and pay the fine without the need to attend court - with its potential for a variable fine and costs. Whatever the PC writes on his copy does not invalidate this; and certainly isn't illegal. Even if he (justifiably IMO) scrawled across his copy "This guy is a edited.....

 

your pathetic)

But I thought that you said you only called people names at school or are you (your quote) "a pathetic idiot"

 

 

You ppl know nowt your a bunsh of has beens,

Back to the name calling then.

 

 

You started this thread to ask for advice. You have been given, good sound information and advice. If you don't like it - tough. Either pay the FPN at £30 as advised, or write to the issuing authority to demand a court hearing - good luck. Or do nothing - I am sure that you will then be posting about how unfair the Baliffs are being

[patdavies]

 

The real problem here is the PC as added a comment on the FPN when it isn't on my original FPN ticket,thats a lie because every PC is sworn to a section 9 statement for truth without going to court,do understand Patdavies?

 

 

And

 

I never stated my FPN was a section 9,speculating again,rewrite all your posts again ppl because u all thrive on speculations.

 

You were the person who raised S9 statements in the first place