Free Traffic Legal Advice

This topic has been moved to Non-motoring legal advice.

https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?topic=10211.0

You are David Lynch and I claim my $5.

Despite checking the old house for post roughly every 3 days, you only saw the NIP (which is only mentioned in the subject heading and not in the body of the post at all) 4 months later (than some unspecified date or event).

So, the first issue is that on the face of it you have committed an offence contrary to s. 172(3) RTA 1988 by failing to provide the required information in the 28 days beginning with the date of service. Whether you have since named yourself as the driver and whether the CTO have accepted a late nomination is currently a matter for conjecture (give us a frickin clue).

You claim that you were apparently offered an SAC, but that the letter offering the course has not been located, despite the diligent checking of post at the old house that took 4 months to locate the NIP. The obvious question is how do you know that a course was [apparently] offered if you did not receive the letter - unless there has been some minor triffling development in the case, such as an SJPN having been issued, which was reasonably considered too trivial to bother mentioning.

So, what actually happened, in chronological order, rather than an ill-advised homage to Twin Peaks?

Most forces seem to insist on "licence details" (referred to in the legislation as "identification details") being provided separately to the penalty being paid. There seems to be a question mark over the legality of this requirement, but if you're just after a quiet life, it would seem prudent to ensure that it is complied with (if you haven't already done so).

What is the date after the DocRefNo at the bottom of page 2 of your V5C?

What does the evidence bundle say about sending of notices?

If the SJ drops the s. 172 and accepts this as a guilty plea to the speeding, there is no "next stage". N.B. Technically it is not within the gift of the court to drop either of the charges, but it is often done, whether with or without the consent of the prosecution.

For 35 in a 30, absent some pretty spectacular aggravating circumstances the endorsement would be 3 points anyway, but worth trying to minimise the fine (and 40% surcharge on that fine).

You appear to be advancing what might constitute a defence to the s. 172 charge as mitigation for the speeding charge. You are relying on the court firing up both brain cells at the same time and making the connection to the fixed penalty not being offered (and therefore not being able to be accepted) due to this issue (whether it is the CTO's IT issue or a pebcak issue).

The obvious question in my mind is whether the CTO allowed an online admission to being the driver, as opposed to only allowing an online response if nominating another person as the driver - some allow either, some only allow nomination and some don't accept online submissions at all - although this is of limited relevance to the question of how best to complete the pleas.

Thanks for pre-emptively telling us that it is a true story. Saves wasting time assuming that you made it up.

However, if you had gone to the trouble of making something up, at least presumably the story would have contained some relevant details (albeit that they would have been untrue).

Where were you in relation to this traffic light when the occifer instructed you to move along?
I note that you do not explicitly deny using a phone.

If you think about it, it's utterly meaningless without context, to the extent that on the face of it there is no point posting it without the necessary information to provide context and make it meaningful.