3. Messages

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.

Messages - ray.g

Pages: [1]
1
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: SJPN
« on: February 22, 2025, 02:21:42 pm »
Thanks for your response(s).
I can't confirm that I've sent my DL details through twice. I have 2 forms in front of me with my details on them but memory wise, even though I believe I did send them twice, I don't have proof. I only know that I paid the fine and sent the forms as required. I take it that I'll have to plea guilty and explain via mitigation as you've suggested. In anyone's opinion and/or experience, is it worth going to court?

2
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: SJPN
« on: February 20, 2025, 04:11:15 pm »
Thanks but I filled in the form containing the information they required, including my DL information. They even sent the form back to me showing the DL number, date, signature, stating I failed to provide my DL number. This makes no sense.

3
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: SJPN
« on: February 20, 2025, 03:17:53 pm »
Thank you for your reply. I'll have to look back through the paperwork. Hopefully, they'll be somewhat understanding.

4
Speeding and other criminal offences / SJPN
« on: February 20, 2025, 02:45:43 pm »
Ive read through some of the posts and replies here relating to similar situations. I received a letter stating I was recorded/flashed, via a yellow stationary camera A4 Cromwell Rd nr Lexham Gdns SW5, doing 25 in a 20mph zone.
I filled in the form, including my DL number etc... paid the £100 and assumed it was over. I then received a SJPN stating I failed to send my DL of which I was unaware I had to do, assuming my DL number was what was required. I suffer from a health condition where my brain operates in a way that goes into overwhelm which leads to a flight or fight response state and struggles to process information correctly in times of stress. I have an official letter stating this but wondering if this would be reason enough for them to reconsider the SJPN?

Pages: [1]