Free Traffic Legal Advice

My brother completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution, with the agreement of the investigating officer that it was still within time to do so. Today, a letter dated 13.03.2025 was received:


"Thank you for your recent communication relating to the alleged offence involving vehicle XXXXXX on 19/09/2024 at XX:XX at XXXXXXXXXXXX.

Unfortunately, due to the high speed you was travelling at, this offence has been referred to the prosecution team . Court proceedings are being initiated and in due course you will receive a further communication which will explin the options available to you."

Is this standard procedure?

As requested:

Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Heidi Brown
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to the motorist parking without a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). - The appellant requests evidence of a contract between the operator and landowner.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. When entering a site, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signs and adhere to the terms and conditions stated. In this case, the signs state vehicles must be registered for a valid permit. The parking operator has provided a permit report which shows no record of permit against the vehicle in question. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the site were breached, and a charge was issued for £100. - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. The appellant was identified as the registered keeper and no driver details were provided, therefore I must assess if the Notice to Keeper is compliant with PoFA. Upon reviewing the PCN, I am satisfied that it was issued within the permitted timeframe and contains the relevant information outlined in PoFA. Please note that there is no requirement to name the creditor on the PCN as the operator is acting on behalf of the PCN. Having reviewed the PCN, I am satisfied that it meets the requirements of PoFA and the operator is permitted to pursue the appellant as the registered keeper. - The appellant requests evidence of a contract between the operator and landowner. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. The operator has provided a signed witness statement to demonstrate that it has landowner authorization. Although the Code of Practice outlines what authorisation must set out my observations extend beyond checking documentation; it includes consideration of the fact that there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow motorists to park on its land without authorisation. Based on the information supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that it meets with the minimum standards set out by the Code of Practice and is compliant. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked without a valid permit and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

Tell us the speed and limit and we can give you an idea of the likely number of points.

It was 35 in a 20,

"It's not impossible but if one is issued the charge can be defended on the basis that the proceedings were taken too late. Bear in mind that the FTF offence is not committed until 28 days after the first request is issued."

Does the FTF ever time out?

So, if he has points on his license already (3 currently, 3 pending), how likely are they to issue 4 points rather than 6, if a sincere, apologetic stance is taken?

Similarly, how likely is a NG defence to succeed with the evidence of a CCTV screenshot and a potential reported clone 2 weeks prior to this alleged offence?

Finally, should he declare the previous potential clone to the existing police force as currently they do not know about it?

No, but depending on how many points he currently has, a successful prosecution may trigger a disqualification under the totting up process.

Would I be right in assuming that he is on 6 points, so 6 points for failure to furnish driver details would put him at 12, versus hoping a magistrate will calculate the original offence is worth less than 6 points even though he and his car wasn't at the location?

Yes, that is pretty much spot on.

Where did this CCTV image come from? A neighbour or a business? It has been mentioned earlier, but the person who provided the CCTV image can attend court in the case of a NG plea and testify to its authenticity. Or is that not possible?

On my brothers driveway.

Edit, the speeding only has 7 days until timeout? He doesn't need a solicitor, he needs to complete the form and make sure it is back to them and acknowledged within that time period otherwise they will prosecute for FTF with no speeding option.

So this confuses me. If he completes the form, he is stating he was the driver?

I would suggest it is now too late to complete the s172 request as it getting to the point where the police have insufficient time to prosecute the driver for speeding.

At what point does it become too late to prosecute a driver for speeding after the alleged offence?

I don’t understand. Either the owner knows his car was elsewhere and wasn’t speeding,
Or the owner was trying a cunning wheeze to avoid points and a fine.

In the former I don’t understand why they wouldn’t be willing to go to court to clear their name.  I’m sure the bench would accept the evidence.

If it is the latter case, you are basically asking can the owner get out of this without consuming porridge? I guess if they don’t present any evidence and plead guilty to FTF (and not guilty to speeding if they’ve been dual charges) the police might ignore their attempt at perverting the course of justice, and they’ll just get the 6 points and hefty insurance premiums for a while.

What is FTF?

The investigating officer has basically put the fear of god into him and are claiming that CCTV can be manipulated and is not admissible.

No wish to be cyrptic, trying to be direct.

The original ticket was received around October.

The car owner did not believe the car was in that location at the time of the alleged offence. A letter was posted to police explaining that. The police wrote back around December asking for photos of the car from all angles. This was emailed to the police.

The police then wrote back saying that although a small difference had been identified on the number plate, they believed the car was in the time of the alleged offence.

They emailed a photo of the front of the car and a photo of the owner from their driving license. It is not possible to identify the driver from the photo of the car.

An email conversation followed. The owner then sent a printed photo of the car on CCTV elsewhere. The police emailed to say they could not see the car properly so an email photo was sent. The police then wrote to say that CCTV can be manipulated and this is not admissable as proof. As of around two days ago, the police stated the matter had now been sent for prosecution.

Another speeding ticket was received two weeks prior to this by a different police force. The same process was followed but that police force accepted that it was 50/50 as to whether or not the car had been cloned and said no further action would be taken. The owner has not let the police force with the current alleged offence about the prior matter.

The owner takes the view they would rather possibly now complete the s172 and accept they may be mistaken than to take the matter to court. Is it now too late to do this?

I am the brother of the owner of the car and trying my very best to help.