Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: f111 on August 28, 2024, 02:29:30 pm
-
Further note to add - He has been fined £583 which wasn't on the first letter he received (referenced above).
PS: His uber license is up for renewal, which he applied for a few months ago - Unclear what will become of this with MS90.
-
UPDATE:
Hi All,
To recap since this post was last year - a relative foolishly duped into paying someone to 'deal with speeding letter', he gave the subsequent police letter to the same people, eventually police wrote to him saying (paraphrased) "this isn't true, and the address/ details you gave are from a nip farm". I subsequently asked here for best suggestions/advice.
I wanted to send an update on this as promised, as others had made contact that they were in the same position too. ('NIP farms' etc)
I recommended the advice given here. He replied to the letters with minimal information, not saying anything more than what was asked/ needed.
His hearing was postponed once, but finally took place a few days ago. He did not attend (as advised).
He was concerned he'd receive a ban or much worse ie a criminal conviction.
He received a letter today giving him 6 points. I couldn't see the offence code on the letter, but loaded the letter to chatgpt which has said it is an MS90, inferred from the reference to "section 172(3) of the RTA 1988". Nothing on the letter about a fine.
Thanks again to those who helped, and all the best to anyone going through the same. Lesson also to those tempted to use those scammers - they left him high and dry and just stopped answering his calls when sh*t hit the fan, despite all their promises when he first paid them. He only mentioned it to me when they had already replied to two letters for him then gone AWOL, probably because I would've told him it was a bloody stupid decision in the first place!
-
there was no intention to dripfeed info, I'd sent what i had in good faith, not seen all this before.
Maybe not, but between you and the 'perp' that is what has happened and as you can imagine it creates some frustration among those trying to help.
Based on THE INFORMATION WE HAVE I agree with AF, pleading guilty to the charge and not attempting any mitigation or defence seems the best route, I can't imagine anything he could (truthfully) say will make things better and with a scope to make things a LOT worse.
-
I note that a partial statement setting out a version of events has been included in the images of the PR, which will be before the court. The version of events in that statement appears to contradict the OP's statement that the RK was invited to provide "correct" driver details.
Indeed. It seems the police knew exactly what had transpired (with over 50 driver nominations being made mentioning the same address).
I think your friend needs to plead guilty either online or by post and keep as far away from a courtroom as he can.
-
When someone "helpfully" seeks advice for a friend, it invariably ends up as some form of Chinese Whispers. Unfortunately, the Admins won't let me string those involved up from the nearest lamp post.
If he's only been charged with the s. 172 offence, there's no option of doing a deal to plead guilty to an offence he hasn't been charged with (although it was apparently common practice for the instant when Harriet Harman was allowed to do it - but never before or since).
I note that a partial statement setting out a version of events has been included in the images of the PR, which will be before the court. The version of events in that statement appears to contradict the OP's statement that the RK was invited to provide "correct" driver details.
However. I would be wary of advising the OP's friend to challenge the statement, or give evidence at all (or attend court), as currently there is merely a very strong suggestion that he was perverting the course of justice, but unless he chooses to give evidence there is no opportunity for the court to put the question to him under oath.
-
The OP appears to have a history of leaving out significant details and then drip-feeding. And those that ought to know better seem to be creating noise by repeating the same questions regarding the missing crucial details.
Apologies all. I was previously getting an email for every reply, but for some reason this stopped with all the last batch so didn't get all the last replies until i logged in by chance this evening.
Id assumed what i posted previously was the whole of the paperwork from them, and had understood that as the offence (it's all I'd received from him). I've just asked for it all now and have attached everything that appears to mention the offence - the rest looks generic. I understood the previous paperwork as he could choose to plead guilty to the speeding, and not guilty to the other charge. Having just seen the rest of the paperwork, i'm not so sure anymore.
If there's any thing else you need, please ask.
https://imgur.com/a/fwN1dQC
Thanks in advance
Ps - there was no intention to dripfeed info, I'd sent what i had in good faith, not seen all this before.
-
The OP appears to have a history of leaving out significant details and then drip-feeding. And those that ought to know better seem to be creating noise by repeating the same questions regarding the missing crucial details.
-
What offences are now mentioned, speeding AND failing to nominate the driver, OR one of those on its own?
-
We're the (corrected) driver details sent within the 7 days that the case was "suspended"?
-
Yes, agreed. ;)
-
What's he been charged with? Speeding, or failing to identify the driver, or both?
Sorry, I missed the "and/or". My suggestion only holds good if he has been charged with both offences. "Senior moment" 8)
But that is in the generic advice, the text explains this is an IF you are charged then... so we still don't know the charges!
-
What's he been charged with? Speeding, or failing to identify the driver, or both?
Sorry, I missed the "and/or". My suggestion only holds good if he has been charged with both offences. "Senior moment" 8)
-
He’ll have to wait for the actual SJPN to see what is charged, or does he have that and you’ve not shared it?
Looks like what he was sent is the the SJPN
Maybe so, but you’ve not included it, only supporting materials which are of little use at all for giving advice.
For example we don’t know what he’s actually charged with.
-
Don't the pages you've posted just contain generic explanatory information?
What's he been charged with? Speeding, or failing to identify the driver, or both?
-
He should respond to the SJPN pleading guilty to speeding and not guilty to he other charge.
He should be sentenced in accordance with the guidelines which suggest a fine of half a week's net income, reduced by a third for his guilty plea, and three points. He will also pay a surcharge of 40% of the fine and costs of around £90.
He should also thank his lucky stars.
-
He’ll have to wait for the actual SJPN to see what is charged, or does he have that and you’ve not shared it?
Looks like what he was sent is the the SJPN (didn't realise this is what the letter was called). I've attached to the original post now too. https://imgbox.com/gallery/edit/MD6M2NPRpU/53XgdYWm56hIj0Bs
Thanks
EDIT: Just to add, he did reply and give his driver details when i first advised after the post here. This was sent via recorded delivery.
-
He’ll have to wait for the actual SJPN to see what is charged, or does he have that and you’ve not shared it?
-
PS - I've tried attaching the letter (only small file - about 500kb) but its telling me upload folder is full. Happy to still upload it if needed and anyone knows another way.
You'll need to use a third party site like Imgur to upload images.
Thanks, I've just attached the letter to the post now.
-
PS - I've tried attaching the letter (only small file - about 500kb) but its telling me upload folder is full. Happy to still upload it if needed and anyone knows another way.
You'll need to use a third party site like Imgur to upload images.
-
Hi All,
I wanted to follow up for those who'd kindly helped previously and also in case anyone else is in the same predicament.
He took the advice and gave his details. They responded with the attached letter.
It looks like they’ve invited him to court. Does the forum have any advice re this hearing? Should he attend? Does anyone have experience of these and likely outcome? I’ve told him a disqualification is definitely possible.
Any and all advice appreciated. He’s a decent guy who done something stupid.
If I remember correctly, there was another case like his on the forum when I first posted and their hearing was in September. I’ll go and look for that post now in case they’ve updated.
Thanks all
EDIT: Letter attached - From the other forum posts, I've realised this is Single Justice Procedure Notice. https://imgbox.com/gallery/edit/MD6M2NPRpU/53XgdYWm56hIj0Bs
-
An example of a failed wizard wheeze, note that the judge said that if they had not pleaded guilty he would have sent them to jail:
£11,000 bill for couple who invented a Bulgarian to avoid speeding fine
By Nigel Bunyan
(Filed: 15/10/2005)
A chartered surveyor and his wife concocted an elaborate plan, complete with a fictitious Bulgarian motorist, in order to avoid paying two £60 speeding fines, a court heard yesterday.
Cathryn Bromley, 42, even flew to the former Soviet bloc country so that her alter ego, Konstantin Koscov, could send a postcard to her husband, Stuart.
The couple were caught out when a police officer became suspicious and managed to prove, courtesy of the British embassy in Sofia, that Mr Koscov existed only in their imagination.
The Bromleys decided on the scam after their blue Mercedes was twice caught speeding by a camera in Hyde, Greater Manchester, last January. Instead of paying the two £60 fines and accepting six points on his licence, Mr Bromley, 43, claimed that neither he nor his wife had been driving.
The guilty party, he maintained, was Mr Koscov, a former employee, who had since returned to his native Bulgaria.
Police believe that the Bromleys were convinced the matter would go away. However, they had not reckoned on the tenacity of Pc Mark Beales. When he began to investigate in more detail the couple decided that they needed more ''evidence''.
Mrs Bromley, who is also a surveyor, bought a ticket for a 1,400-mile return flight to Sofia where she wrote and posted Mr Koscov's postcard before catching the next flight back. She was at home in Broadbottom, Glossop, Derbys, when the postcard, featuring scenes from Bulgaria, landed on the doormat. It read: "Many thanks for the opportunity to work in your office. I enjoyed the experience and would gladly return the favour, unfortunately my car is nowhere as good as yours but it will get you about! 'Many thanks again and look forward to my next trip. Regards Konstantin Koscov."
Unfortunately for the Bromleys, they were a little too keen to present this new, seemingly incontrovertible piece of ''evidence'' to Pc Beales.
''We became suspicious because they were being too helpful in providing this postcard to corroborate their story,'' he said outside court. He also thought that Mr Koscov's vocabulary did not quite ring true and made the inquiries that would prove that the couple were lying.
Once the Bromleys knew they had been rumbled they confessed. Yesterday at Manchester Crown Court they were fined a total of £9,200 and ordered to pay £1,900 costs after admitting two counts of perverting the course of justice.
Passing sentence, Judge Bernard Lever said: "The best place to hit people like these is in their pockets. Had they not pleaded guilty, I would have almost certainly sent them to prison."
As a result of his court appearance Stuart Bromley is being investigated by his professional body, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. An RICS spokesman said he faced possible expulsion and a fine of up to £5,000.
-
Another notorious example (albeit in Australia)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7967982.stm
-
Thank you. He was the driver - will tell him to fill in the correct details and hope for the best. Can only give the advice and hope he takes it!
I'll update here if he shares the outcome with me.
-
To be clear, he must name the driver. Some people have assumed your friend was the driver but that may not be correct. He has to name the driver, even if it means more trouble for him (if he doesn’t name the driver he commits the s 172 offence; and naming the wrong driver is also a more serious offence).
-
I'd suggest the latter. The least said the better.
I agree. To expect the police to believe it was a "mistake" is expecting too much!
-
Thanks all for the input. I will suggest as advised.
Do you think I should tell him to write a cover letter ("hi there must've been a mistake, here are the correct details now"), or just fill in the driver details?
I'd suggest the latter. The least said the better.
-
Strange that we've seen two posts originating today where "Wizard Wheezes" (aka utter stupidity) have been employed.
I'd never even heard of 'wizard wheezes' before today (I was getting Harry potter references when i googled it after Rookie's post earlier!). I just saw the other post from today you mentioned - I'd be having sleepless nights if that were me!!
-
Thanks all for the input. I will suggest as advised.
Do you think I should tell him to write a cover letter ("hi there must've been a mistake, here are the correct details now"), or just fill in the driver details?
-
FWIW if you had been able to access pepipoo, you would have found a thread (running to probably 12+ pages) of examples of people turning very minor speeding offences into prison time.
Here's a couple:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/11/chris-huhne-vicky-pryce
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47040912
Your friend really has no choice but to name himself (assuming he was driving) and hope the police have better things to do. If he does nothing they will certainly prosecute him for failing to provide the driver's details and may go for attempting to pervert the course of justice. I think he has been very lucky that they have not gone straight for the latter.
Strange that we've seen two posts originating today where "Wizard Wheezes" (aka utter stupidity) have been employed.
-
Your friend seems to have been thrown a lifeline. He would be foolish in the extreme not to grab it.
He must respond naming himself as the driver. As regards evidence for the original nomination, I'm guessing he has none. Rather than digging an even deeper hole, I'd suggest he simply ignore the question. As The Rookie has suggested, the police may well take it no further - and the jails are full anyway.
FWIW if you had been able to access pepipoo, you would have found a thread (running to probably 12+ pages) of examples of people turning very minor speeding offences into prison time.
-
Maybe i'm too risk averse, but it saves nonsense like this.
I think being against lying to the police can be filed under "sensible" rather than "too risk averse" on your part. It's not worth risking a prison sentence to dodge a minor speeding charge.
Any other advice you would give?
Those with more legal expertise may be able to offer insight into any procedural matters, but any advice as to what he should do is likely to essentially be: "Don't lie". If he has already lied about who was driving, he cannot undo that, but he can start telling the truth now, and hope that he hasn't made things too bad for himself. If they're providing the opportunity to name the correct driver, doing so would seem sensible.
-
Thank you for the reply. Foolish people taking foolish advice unfortunately, I think someone else helped fill in the letter for him and now gone awol.
Wish he'd told me about it then, as i'd have said the same thing then too. Maybe i'm too risk averse, but it saves nonsense like this.
As before, would be great to hear from someone who's been through it. Mainly because the stakes are just so high like you mentioned.
I'm tempted to just say 'here's what i think you should do, but understand it does come with its own risk'
Any other advice you would give?
Thanks
-
If the Police assertion is true your friend could well be looking at a 12 month stretch. Hundreds of people have been sent to jail for trying such a 'wizard wheeze', it's really not a good idea.
HOWEVER, the Police have increasingly given people the opportunity to reconsider, and no they don't then take further action, but continue with naming the same person and it makes them more likely to continue with a more serious charge. Of course it may be a genuine nomination but the tone of your post suggests not.
-
Hi All,
I’m seeking some advice on behalf of someone else please. (no really lol) I've tried searching google/ the forum but could only find references to the old pepipoo, which would no longer open.
He received a speeding letter/ NIP and submitted driver details. 46mph in a 40.
They’ve written back to him, rejected the nominated driver and effectively said the following (paraphrased for brevity) –
1.The person who you said was driving is not on the car’s insurance policy.
2.They’re not registered at the address you gave with a valid uk driving license.
3.Nominated person is not on the voters roll there.
4.It’s an offence to provide misleading/ inaccurate driver details
5.You must provide driver details by law.
They’ve “suspended the file for 7 days to provide correct driver details, and supporting evidence for the original submission”. First thing I suggested was to write back and say “it was me driving, and here are my details”. However, here is the question – if he does this are they likely to pursue/ prosecute him for the incorrect original submission?
Last thing I want to do is offer some advice in good faith trying to be helpful and he ends up in a worse position and I’m the one responsible. If its relevant he’s an uber driver too.
Has anyone been in this situation, or know of similar? And/ or know what happened in the other cases?
Thanks in advance.