Show Posts - andy_foster

Whether or not the OP was offered an SAC is utterly irrelevant other beyond the moderating issue of removing irrelevant noise and irrelevant noise makers.@OP - details are often important. SP30 is the endorsement code that the DVLA uses when applying endorsements to your driving record (virtual counterpart) for speeding in an ordinary vehicle on an ordinary road. This clearly hasn't happened, so your references to SP30 appear to be "user generated content".QuoteI received notification on 22nd August for Sp30 3 points and £100 fine for each one and I paid for both on 4th September 2025.Are you trying to tell us that you received two separate Conditional Offers of Fixed Penalty, conditionally (upon not being liable to tot up to 12 or more points) offering you the opportunity to dispose of the liability for the offence(s) by paying the fixed penalties and sending your identity information (licence details) to the specified address for the points to be applied to your driving record, or that you were notified that SP30 endorsements had been applied to your driving record (we know it's not this one), or something else entirely?

I struggled to get past the legal genius who understands the law far better than all the lawyers and judges in the country consistently using "there" instead of "their".Haven't read the Magna Carta recently, but I'm going to take a leap and say that it does not contain a definition of "driver" for the purposes of s. 172 RTA 1988, s. 89 RTRA 1984, or at all.

The 6 points and MS90 endorsement code are mandatory on conviction (unless the court finds that there are special reasons not to endorse - which is mitigation regarding the commission of the offence that is so compelling that the court properly ought to consider not ordering your licensed to be endorsed - generally that the offence was committed through no real fault of your own, but that the circumstances do not constitute a defence - or unless they decided to ban you outright for the offence - which would go against their guidance and the intention of Parliament if done in order to avoid a totting up ban).There is no "£1000 fine", and nobody has told you that there is. The fine itself cannot exceed level 3 on the standard scale - £1000. The staring point is 150% of your Relevant Weekly Income (reduced by 1/3 to 100% RWI for an early guilty plea) plus 40% surcharge plus prosecution costs (~£95 for a guilty plea, ~£620 for a contested trial).If you plead guilty by post, there is no obvious reason why your attendance would be required.

Quick sanity check - for the purposes of totting up, points count for 3 years from date of offence to date of offence - were all of your current points from offences committed less than 3 years before the current offence?

The concept of contesting a COFP is a nullity - you either accept it (you can't), or you don't. If you don't accept the COFP, then it has no bearing on anything else, and it is then open to the police (after the expiration of the 28 day suspended enforcement period) to instigate court proceedings - the same as if they had not issued the COFP.N.B. The fine will be based on the sentencing guidelines, not the COFP, as explained by Daim456 above.

Quote from: PCN ticket on 19 Jan, 2026 18:11Can anyone offer any advice on this pleaseGarbage in = garbage out

To clarify (because your version of events, as written makes my head hurt)..You failed to notify the DVLA of change of keeper when you sold your car. This was your legal obligation.The garage said that they would take care of that by requesting a new V5C by sending a completed V62 form. The car was sold the following month.At some later and as yet unspecified date it was caught speeding.A NIP incorporating a requirement under s. 172 was sent at some later date to your "last known address" and deemed served 2 working days later.You did not respond to this requirement, due to being unaware of it.An SJPN was issued for the offence of failing to name the driver, and presumably also for the underlying speeding offence. You did not receive this as it was sent to your previous address (your last known address).You were convicted in your absence of the s. 172 offence (MS90 is the DVLA endorsement code). You would not have been convicted of the speeding offence as there was no evidence that you were the driver.You got the conviction set aside under s. 14 Magistrates Courts Act 1980 as you were unaware of the proceedings.You are now facing the s. 172 charge again, the difference being that you are now aware of that.N.B. The timeline, such that it is, is based on your account, and may well not be accurate.At first blush, this is your own fault for failing to notify the DVLA of change of keeper. There is a statutory defence to failing to name the driver where it was not reasonably practicable to provide the information required - however, simply being unaware of the notice is not in and of itself sufficient, reasonable practicability will include the wider question of whether or not it would have been reasonably practicable to ensure that any such notices were brought to your attention, such as by complying with your legal obligation to notify the DVLA of change of keeper.However, all might not be lost. Or it might. Ordinarily, when a vehicle is sold to a trader, it is recorded as being "in trade", until such time as it is sold and registered in the name of the new buyer.Off the top of my head, the V62 process can be quite lengthy as the DVLA are supposed to write to the registered keeper to give them an opportunity to object to the transfer.What we do not know is whether the V62 process was still in progress at the material time (when the car was caught speeding, or when the police looked up the RK details) - in which case everything is your fault, or whether it had been completed and was showing as "in trade" and you were sent the NIP as "previous keeper" - in which case it would seem that your prior failure to notify the DVLA would have made no difference and the defence would seem to have legs.When was the vehicle sold to the dealer?When did the dealer sell the vehicle?When did the dealer receive the new V5C?When and how did the dealer register the vehicle to the buyer?When was the vehicle caught speeding?When was the NIP/s. 172 sent to your previous address (we could work this out from the s. 172 offence date)?

The ABS light probably came on when he was aquaplaning.

And what is the relevance of the subjective concept of reasonableness?

There is no legislation that allows them to issue a fine or penalty. You would be looking for a very, very long time if you tried to find it.

This topic has been moved to The Flame Pit.https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?topic=8455.0

I refer the learned gentleman to my previous answer.However, I am struggling to see how going through the letter piecemeal and posting up every clearly bollox claim or statement as a new post assists the OP. If anyone wants to go through the fishing net and pick holes in it for funsies, feel free to start a thread in the Flame Pit. You don't have to call it "Steaming pile of utter bollox letter from PayMyFuel", but it might help others to know what to expect.

That statement appears to be about as accurate as their claim to be able to issue fines in the first place.

Is that a serious question?The letter appears to be at least 90% bluff and bluster.

Quote from: AliBen800 on 11 Jan, 2026 22:43Many thanks Andy, that's been great help. It's helped me understand things more clearly.Your questions bellow suggest otherwise.QuoteSo during the conversation with the insurance company, I will eventually have to either tell them I will be filling a claims court or instructing an accident management company on my behalf? Would that be the correct stance?Drugs are bad, m'kay?Issuing a court claim, or instructing a claims management company are the last resort if the other party's insurers refuse to entertain a claim from you directly - as I already explained in the post that allegedly helped you understand things more clearly.QuoteJudging by the accident damage I have described, would you at any point put any blame on me (as an insurer?) Would the damage sustained on both vehicles make it obvious who was at fault?Judging by the accident damage alone, and ignoring your witness and your video evidence, would be an absurdly pointless thing to do. Unless there was some compelling reason why you could not rely on your video evidence and your witness.