Show Posts - dynamyq

there's a big diffrence bewteen you not being aware and "nobody seemed to be aware"I posetd the message to see if anyone else was aware.if you're not aware that's fine but that doesn't equaute to no one else being aware of a process.

As I understand it, in the Magistrates Court, if a fine or costs order cannot be paid within 12 months, an individual can return to the court, make a statutory declaration of means, and apply for the costs/fine to be remitted — for example, on the basis that they are unemployed or in receipt of DWP benefits and genuinely cannot afford to pay. This is a well-established process.**My question – Crown Court equivalent**I am trying to establish whether there is an equivalent mechanism available in the Crown Court. Specifically:1. **Is there a similar principle in the Crown Court** whereby, if a fine or costs order cannot be paid within 12 months due to genuine financial hardship, a person can return to the Crown Court and apply for the order to be varied, reduced, or remitted?2. **Does the 21-day rule present a barrier?** In the Crown Court, applications to vary a sentence or order are typically made within 21 days of the original hearing (under the Crown Court's slip rule or the Court of Appeal route). However, if the basis for the application is *ongoing financial hardship* rather than an error at the time of sentencing, is there a mechanism that allows a person to return to the Crown Court *after* that 21-day window has passed?3. t I'm unclear whether there is a specific statutory provision or procedural route equivalent to the Magistrates' remission process that applies where circumstances have changed *after* the order was made.Any guidance on the correct statutory footing, case law, or procedural route would be greatly appreciated. I'm particularly interested in whether a change in financial circumstances (e.g. loss of employment, reliance on benefits) after the original order gives rise to a right to return to the Crown Court outside the usual 21-day window.Thank you in advance.

I’m looking for guidance on a situation involving Crown Court costs and whether there is any mechanism to seek remission due to financial hardship.I was unsuccessful in a firearms licence appeal at Crown Court (November 2024). The judge ruled against me and awarded costs in favour of the Metropolitan Police (around £4,000+).At the hearing, I made it clear that I was not working, but the judge did not engage with my financial circumstances and still awarded full costs. The interaction felt dismissive, and I came away with the impression that my situation had not been properly considered.My understanding (from experience in the Magistrates’ Court) is that where someone is unemployed or on benefits, the court will usually consider their means and often remit or reduce costs, particularly if they cannot realistically be paid within a reasonable timeframe (e.g. 12 months).Fast forward to now — I have been out of work for several months and am currently on DWP benefits. I tried to go back through the court to ask whether I could apply for some or all of the costs to be remitted due to hardship (similar to how it works in the Magistrates’ Court).However, I’ve run into a complete dead end:The Crown Court says it has no jurisdiction to vary or remit the costs once ordered.The Magistrates’ Court says it also has no power to vary Crown Court costs.I’ve been told the Met Police are enforcing the costs, and I should speak to them.The police have allowed me to pay in instalments (e.g. ~£50/month), but they are not willing to remit or reduce the amount.At this rate, it will take me several years to pay off the costs, which seems disproportionate given I am on benefits.So my questions are:Is it correct that there is no mechanism at all to apply for remission of Crown Court costs based on hardship?Why does the Magistrates’ Court have a clear process for this, but the Crown Court apparently does not?Is it really correct that the enforcing party (the police) are effectively the only ones who can consider hardship, rather than a court?Is there any route (short of judicial review, which seems time-barred) to get this reconsidered?I’ve also gone through the complaints process with HMCTS, but haven’t received any clear answer on whether such a mechanism exists.Would really appreciate any insight from those familiar with Crown Court procedure or costs enforcement.Thanks in advance.

thank you for the advice and clarifications - much appreciated (even the stroppy posts)                              

i asked a follow up question and was seeking clarification.i wasn't arguing with the advice but trying to understand it.                            

Quote from: clay on 27 Mar, 2026 19:09Quote from: dynamyq on 27 Mar, 2026 17:58...Therefore of the 3 possible options...It's not 3 options. It's 2 options, which are:1) the calibration at the factory (lasting 3 years)2) the calibration on site (lasting 1 year, which is why after the initial one they gave it an annual update)You were caught within 1 year of the last on site calibration, and within 3 years of the last factory calibration, so it's not out-of-date. Not that an out-date-date calibration is likely to matter anyway.Quote from: NewJudge on 27 Mar, 2026 18:38Whatever you decide to do, you must respond to the request for driver’s details within the 28 days allowed.OP already has a COFP, so I think it's safe to say they replied to the request for driver's details. The timeline to respond to the COFP may be a bit more pressingSurely there are 3 possible options:Valid until up to one year from Site CalibrationValid until up to one year from Calibration Inspection DateValid until up to three years from Radar Factory Calibration Datewhichever is soonerThe soonest of these is one year from Initial Site Calibration therefore it was valid until 19/12/2023Surely the whole point of a certificate is to prove the device is still working and has been checked.  Therefore if the certificate is out of date why doesn't that effectively mean that the device cannot be relied upon in a lawful/legal senseIsn't this a technicality that can be relied upon in court?

Hello,I have received a NIP for an alleged speeding fine from surrey police for a camera at location S79, A23 Horley Road, South Earlswood, at 01.35 hours on 24th Oct 2025.The original NIP was received within time.There were some letters backwards and forwards with the police but eventually i received a Conditional Offer of fixed penalty (3 points and £100 fine).However looking at the Certificate of calibration, I believe that it could be argued that the certificate is out of date.Allow me to explain.It effectively has three relevant dates:Radar Factory Calibration Date  16/11/2023Initial Site Calibration Start Date  20/12/2023Annual Inspection Date  25/11/2024And a stated “Valid Until*” date of: 24/11/2025and then some wording* Site Calibration Valid until up to one year from Site Calibration/ Calibration Inspection Date, or three years from Radar Factory Calibration Date, whichever is sooner.The key words here I believe are "whichever is sooner"Therefore of the 3 possible options, the soonest date is Site Calibration Valid until up to one year from Site Calibration 16/11/2023 therefore the certificate woud be valid until 15/11/2024 and NOT 24/11/25.Am I correct in my understanding and reading?are these grounds to challenge?or should i accept the offer?Also, would the Police need to provide a certificate of annual inspection if it is mentioned on the calibration certificate?calibration certificate here:https://ibb.co/sJcdn3VpAdvice gratefully welcome.

Quote from: Incandescent on 08 Dec, 2023 12:24THe key bit of info here is the intention to install warning signs, (but not doing so before the LTN was established,  because this indicates the inadequacy of the signage.  If you're prepared to stand your ground and risk the full PCN penalty, take them to adjudication. However, a win is not guaranteed, I'm afraid.  Apart from the missing warnings, you look bang-to-rights, frankly.I just came across some other information which might be relevant.  Since the PCN does not has an address where I can send payment by post, does this not make it invalid or a reason to contest it?

the car was travelling along Dalmally Road on to Blackhorse Lane.

VRN is DE19 XEZPCN is CR 18682060Google does not yet have any images of the signs on the road at Dalmally Road.https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3846303,-0.0713052,3a,75y,48.5h,83.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPy2ON2JoJADg9VRXA2tFwQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

HelloMy wife receieved a PCN from Croydon Council on 15/11/23, whilst taking our 18 year old son for a driving practice drivng lesson ahead of his test in a couple of months.52J - Failing to Comply with a Prohibition on certain types of vehicles.This happened on Dalmally Road at the junction with Blackhorse Lane in Croydon (Addsicombe).I appealed against the PCN on 16/11/23 and subsequently have recieved a Notice of Rejection on 09/11/23Should this be appealed further (to the Adjudiator) or should the fine be paid?I attach the original PCN, my intial appeal and the Rejection Notice from Croydon Council.  All and any advice/guidance gratefully accepted, thank you for taking the time to read this  [ Guests cannot view attachments ]