1
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Non-motoring legal advice / Re: HMCTS Warrant of Control with wrong address
« on: Today at 12:24:50 pm »
When you say "wrong address", did the warrant specify the address that he forcibly entered?
Did the ex ever live there? Your timeline suggests so, but your question implies not.
Did the occifer seize any goods?
In general, for bailiff advice we would generally defer to Sheila at Bailiff Advice Online - although others on here may have worthwhile knowledge or experience they can share (or a crystal ball).
Did the ex ever live there? Your timeline suggests so, but your question implies not.
Did the occifer seize any goods?
In general, for bailiff advice we would generally defer to Sheila at Bailiff Advice Online - although others on here may have worthwhile knowledge or experience they can share (or a crystal ball).
3
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Going 24mph on a 20, only saw NIP 4 months later
« on: Today at 12:16:11 pm »
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?
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?
4
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: 35MPH in a 30MPH section of Bath Road, London. SJPN received (with a twist ?)
« on: Yesterday at 09:42:17 pm »
We've heard of cases where the fine has been reduced to account for the costs - e.g. £35 fine and £65 costs - but this seems to be the other way around - fine at FP level (although why £99 instead of £100) and costs increased to stop the OP getting off too lightly.
However, without knowing whether the OP pled guilty, or what income (if any) he disclosed, this is getting close to the level of pointless speculation I have been known to criticise others for.
However, without knowing whether the OP pled guilty, or what income (if any) he disclosed, this is getting close to the level of pointless speculation I have been known to criticise others for.
5
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Mislaid s172 offer
« on: March 10, 2026, 01:57:21 pm »
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).
6
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: SJP for speeding + S172. Never received NIP (already 9 points) advice please?
« on: March 10, 2026, 12:46:13 pm »
So, you know where the V5C is, you know that it hasn't moved in the last 5 years, and 2 1/2 hours after telling us this, you still haven't managed to find it?
7
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: SJP for speeding + S172. Never received NIP (already 9 points) advice please?
« on: March 09, 2026, 08:59:16 pm »
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?
What does the evidence bundle say about sending of notices?
8
News / Press Articles / Re: Croydon Croydon LTNs ruled unlawful as High Court finds they were used to boost council finances
« on: March 07, 2026, 06:40:16 pm »9
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: SJPN received - 35 in a 30 zone
« on: March 04, 2026, 10:28:16 pm »
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.
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.
10
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Mislaid s172 offer
« on: March 04, 2026, 06:29:31 pm »11
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Single Justice Procedure Notice
« on: March 04, 2026, 03:47:42 pm »
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.
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.
12
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Lorry parked on the exit of services
« on: March 03, 2026, 08:24:32 am »It could be 4 points for a professional driver.
The legislation (Schedule 2) says
Quote
3-6 or 3 (fixed penalty) if committed in respect of a speed restriction, 3 in any other case.
As this was explicitly not in respect of a speed restriction, perhaps you could provide an authority to support your assertion that "3 in any other case", as stated in the legislation, does not apply in respect of a professional driver.
13
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Without care and attention
« on: March 02, 2026, 09:40:54 am »
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.
14
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Without care and attention
« on: March 01, 2026, 12:39:40 pm »
Once again, 7.2.
15
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Without care and attention
« on: March 01, 2026, 12:31:31 pm »
Based on evidence we haven't seen, and wording we haven't seen in the SJPN/written charge, as regards whether it is worth challenging the double white lines charge, I would say about 7.2.
Do both charges arise from substantially set same set of facts, or do they relate to separate incidents?
On the face of it, absent some causal factor outside of your control, hitting a stationary object is pretty much a slam dunk for careless driving.
With 9 relevant points, any conviction for an endorseable offence is going to see you totting up to 12 points.
Upon totting up to 12 points requires the court to ban you for at least 6 months unless you can persuade them that such a ban would cause exceptional hardship - that is to say hardship beyond what most motorists would expect to suffer as a result of such a ban. However, there seems little point in looking into that as you have already told us that you are going to lose your licence.
Do both charges arise from substantially set same set of facts, or do they relate to separate incidents?
On the face of it, absent some causal factor outside of your control, hitting a stationary object is pretty much a slam dunk for careless driving.
With 9 relevant points, any conviction for an endorseable offence is going to see you totting up to 12 points.
Upon totting up to 12 points requires the court to ban you for at least 6 months unless you can persuade them that such a ban would cause exceptional hardship - that is to say hardship beyond what most motorists would expect to suffer as a result of such a ban. However, there seems little point in looking into that as you have already told us that you are going to lose your licence.