Show Posts - ft_sjo

My option to take this to court was revoked by the powers that be (wife). Paid, begrudgingly.

Still debating this one. £100 to effectively admit guilt of an offence where no evidence has been provided. What a sham.

@mickR This is correct. The plate does conform, and was issued by a company registered to produce plates and has the relevant BS watermark on it. The issue isn't/shouldn't be the plate itself, but I expect it's down to the visibility.It goes against my soul to pay up for a fine without evidence. I am however on the fence with regards to does it bother me enough to want to pay more than £100 to prove a point. I suspect I will end up just paying it (even if it's just to keep the wife happy). Blah.

@baroudeur @RichardW - Thanks for your replies. To give some extra context (there's always some, right?):There was an event for the public held at a commercial premises. At least in one instance, the police had set themselves up road-side nearby to 'catch' potential offenders leaving the event.As far as I am aware, the police were only present on the near-side of the road, pulling people into a layby. I do not know what device or location was used to capture evidence in relation to the allegations against me. My assumption it was a mobile/portable camera used as part of this temporary road-side posture.@RichardW - To answer your MOT question, yes the vehicle was MOT'd with this plate. However, the MOT rules don't go into the same level of detail as the Act would require (e.g. MOT tester isn't going to stand 22 metres away from the vehicle at 45 degrees to read the plate). @baroudeur The vehicle would have been moving at time of evidence capturing, so no notice on the vehicle, hence the NIP.So did return the s172 request, and the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty arrived last week.. Attached to post. Looks like I wouldn't get to see any evidence, as people have pointed out, unless I take it to court.I am pretty confident that there is practically no way the police could have clear evidence that the plate was not fully readable from a 90 degree window of viewing. They may have it from one viewpoint, but multiple? Doubtful.It's just £100, I get it. I also think things should be right and proper, but as I get older I am somewhat of a pragmatist, and appreciate there's no practical way the police could enforce this rule whilst a vehicle is mobile, unless the plate is missing or something very obvious.What are the potential implications of taking this to court? Is there a way this could go to court and not cost me more than £100? Even taking time off work is worth more than that to me.What if I am found guilty? Is that a criminal record? I get DBS checked for my job. I need to consider this. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Quote from: NewJudge on 11 Nov, 2024 16:45Apologies, I understand where you are coming from now.QuoteI have no idea what evidence there is yet, I assume I will be able to see that once I identify the driver.No you won't. If you are offered a fixed penalty you either accept the allegation as it stands or you decline (or ignore) the offer and face prosecution in court. Only then will you be provided with he evidence the police intend to rely on to convict you.If you intend to do that you need to make sure you are fully familiar with the regs because failure will be very expensive. This diagram explains it:https://ibb.co/Cw0qfSBThe point of area from  which the plate needs to be readable is beneath the centre point of the plate, not the car so you need to bear that in mind if your plate is offset.Thanks, I am not sure I am interpreting your drawing properly. This is my interpretation of the regulations below. It's interesting that you point out it's based on the location of the plate, not the centre of the car (of course not ALL cars have the plate mounted centrally). Whilst that is of slight benefit in my case, potentially, it may not be enough. However, I still want to know how they can prove the contravention by having a single point of view from the roadside.I've also included an indicative photo of the plate location from the front perspective. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Quote from: baroudeur on 11 Nov, 2024 15:54Is there a photo?  It's doubtful there would be enough details of the plate regarding maker/supplier/ BS marks from a fixed camera photograph 'cos hundreds of 'iffy' plates must be flashed every dayI have no idea what evidence there is yet, I assume I will be able to see that once I identify the driver. I'm familiar with the regs you posted and as above, it's possible that it only meets the diagonal view from one angle, not t'other. BUT how would they prove that with a photo from one angle? That's going to be my point in the future, I suspect.

Hi all. I've received the below letter in the post, NIP with a demand to identify the driver. Whilst I appreciate this is £100/no points to make go away, I feel I would like to view the evidence and potentially challenge it. I believe I know where the camera was which will be used for evidence reasons, and if this is true then I do not believe it could have caught adequate evidence to prove the registration did not conform to regulations..The registration mark meets the regulations, but its placement may be challenged (it's offset to one side). Whilst you can definitely read it at 45 degrees from one side of the vehicle, it may be tricky from the other side (think alfa romeo plate to the side kind of setup). The evidence camera would have been on the side of the road where the plate is facing, so absolutely no way they could tell that it may not be visible from the obtuse angle (+90 degrees laterally)..I assume I should proceed with supplying driver details? £100 is cheaper than £1000.... [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Et voila.. a somewhat confusing letter, page 1 says it was issued correctly, then page they play the 'we'll let you off this one time' spiel.. Thank you to those that helped, greatly appreciated. The old boy is too!

Quote from: DWMB2 on 12 Sep, 2024 17:51Are you checking spam regularly?Yep..

No response yet to the appeal.

Quote from: DWMB2 on 23 Aug, 2024 16:48Yes, Registered Keeper is the correct one to select. What you don't want to select is anything that says who was driving.Quote from: ft_sjo on 23 Aug, 2024 16:48@DWMB2 Many thanks for your lightning response.I can't promise I'll always be that quick, I was looking at another thread just as you posted  Great, thanks, appeal submitted as advised with the follow auto-response from Brittania. I'll be sure to check my 'dunk' folder  :

@DWMB2 Many thanks for your lightning response. The appeal form does have a drop-down, is it OK to select registered keeper?

..

Hi all,First post here - didn't realise pepipoo was no more but found the link to here via reddit.My 82yr old Father overstayed his welcome at a Brittania-managed car park (Waitrose). It's been a long time since I last dealt with a PCN so curious if anything has changed in the past few years, but crucially do you have recommendations on how to get this PCN cancelled.Photos attached. I am not sure if he has a proof of purchase over £10 to qualify for parking. Many thanks for your advice.Streetmap link: https://maps.app.goo.gl/21hu81SQigLYX1DEA