Show Posts - carr1514

So my best possible outcome is to accept the fixed penalty, lose my job and go on the dole?Perfect system. Exactly where the government want you.

I’m planning on pleading with the court to not endorse my license as I’ll lose employment and won’t be able to secure employment with 9 points on my license. I can’t afford insurance as is with 6 points never mind 9.No delivery service provider will take on someone with more than 6 points. I’m not denying the fact I was driving with bald tyres, I was naive to think that companies care about the safety of there workers and wouldn’t give them a van they knew had dodgy tyres on it. Hence why I didn’t do a full 360 point check in the dark of the van before I drove it home. That’s my mistake right there and I’ve learned from it. However I’m now being severely punished for something that although the law is fairly clear on it, I agree on that. In a more realistic sense It’s hardly my fault.

Yes I currently have 3 active points but for insurance purposes I have 6, if I get another 3 I'll have 9, I'll lose my job. My job requires a clean license ( no more than 6 points ) for insurance, I am just scraping by having 6 points, anymore and I won't be able to drive.So yes I'll need to go to court as I face loosing employment, won't be able to get a delivery driver job anywhere with 9 points.

I fully agree, however I’m not a car mechanic.. how am I supposed to know what an MOT testing station number is, all the vrec says is to take it to a certified MOT tester to have the car checked. which I did. Not my fault the tester didn’t have the mot testing station number, he signed it with his name and the business name. The van wasn’t mine, infact the same night I was stopped by the police the van was collected back by the hire company and I never drove it ever again. I had to jumps through hoops to get the van back from the hire company to take it to a local mechanic to get the vrec form signed.The police were fully aware it was a hire van and that all work on it must be done through an approved mechanic by the hire company, hence why he said that a mobile mechanic CAN sign it off.I agree an undocumented conversation would not hold up in court hence why a lot of police now a days are forced to wear bodycams for this very reason. Either way I’m going to have to go to court anyway as 3 more points on my license I’ll lose my job so fun times.

Thanks for getting back to me, he told me he didn’t have a testing station number because when he does MOT’s it’s done off site, at another location and he didn’t know the station number off the top off his head, he is a mechanic that comes to our depot every week to do odd repair jobs on vans, he signed his name and company etc, but wasn’t able to sign the testing site number. What I don’t understand is, why was I given false information at the scene by the officer. Why when originally sending this did I receive a letter back saying if I could send supporting documentation to prove the defect has been rectified? Why the job form, signed by the mechanic with his company logo on it, my signature and the vans reg isn’t proof.So you’re saying it’ll look like I couldn’t be bothered to get the issue fixed to a court?

Ok heard back from the police, the reason they have referred me to courts is that the VRECH form was received completed after the 21 days, the actual form was signed and dated before the 21 days but the actual form never got back to them until after the 21 days, due to it being sent back and fourth 3 times due to incorrect information ( mainly due to being told incorrect information by the police officer) and again by the police station who told me in writing that I could provide supporting evidence ( which I did, the job form showing a new tyre replacement, signed by the mechanic who fitted it) unsure what more evidence they’d need. Either way they declined the supporting evidence and demanded a signed vrech form from a mot tester at a mot testing site with a testing site number. My question is if I let this go to court will they even acknowledge the vrech form issued or are they there simply to say “did you have a bald tyre or not”, will they take into account that I actually made an effort to fill this vrech form out, get the vehicle fixed and follow the rules given to me back the police officer at the scene?I mean if I accept this condition I get 3 points regardless, if I go to court I get 3 points but up to a 5k fine or potentially get let off Scott free What’s the likely hood of me getting no points and no fine if I proceed with court.

Yes the original VREC form does say have it fixed and sent back to the police within 21 days.However again, because it had to be sent to a police station 40 miles from me ( not my local police station ) there would of been like 7-8 days where it was spent in the back of a van or at a sorting depot in transit.I also lost a week of that due to going on holiday, not realising that the form would be sent back to me a second time.I'm thinking my best course of action is to contact the police station and ask why I am being prosecuted for this. I've all the evidence to show it was fixed within 24 hours of being issued the VREC, it had been signed off by a valid MOT tester ( just didn't have a test site number ), was sent away multiple times ( i have receipts from the post office for this ), i've also a witness who was in the car with me when i was pulled over by the police who can provide a written statement that the police stated i'd not be prosecuted if this was fixed within 21 days and that I didn't need to take this to an MOT site and that a mobile mechanic who fixes the tyre can sign this off for me.I'm unsure if the police who stopped me had a body cam to reinforce what I am saying, so might just be my word against theres on this

Ideally i don't want 3 points for the offence of a bald tyre, my insurance premiums are high enough as is. I mean do i have a case here? the police told me they would prosecute me if it was fixed within 21 days, i've found what i was given. It was a Vehicle Defect Rectification Scheme (VDRS), is this maybe an automatic thing because they wouldn't have received the letter back within 21 days but the work was carried out and fixed within the 21 days? I can hardly be to blame for the need to send multiple letters to the police to clarify information that i was given in error at the scene?Thanks.

Hello,the date of the previous offence was 21/07/2019 ( 6 points ).On the same date as this offence i am posting about, i was stopped by the police for speeding, (39 in a 30) i just took the 3 points and 100 pound for that which is fine. So now i am on 9 points, so at the same time they gave me a speeding ticket and also told me to get my tyre fixed but told me i'd not be prosecuted for the tyre if i got it fixed within 21 days.I guess i should write to the police station and ask them why i am being prosecuted for this?Thanks.

hello,I received a letter from the crown office and procurator fiscal service, it says it's a conditional offer of a fixed penalty.It states i was driving a vehicle with the coords exposed on a tyre, which i was, i was stopped by the police at the time for it. However the police chose not togive me a fine or any points and said they could go through some sort of vehicle repair scheme ( can't remember the name they used for it sorry ), i essentiallywas given a print out of the offence and i had to get it fixed within 21 days and checked off by a MOT tester and sent back to the police station.Now i was told by the police officer at the scene that i didn't need to get an actual MOT, any mot tester mobile or not could do this as i said to him that itwasn't my van but a hire van, any work carried out on it is normally done by a mobile mechanic, this was false information, a mobile mechanic was not ableto carry this work out as he needed an MOT testing site number which he wouldn't have.So i wasted about 8 days of them 21 days sending that letter off to then have it sent back saying it needs an MOT testing site number, i then sent a letter back stating that the work has been complete, i attached a job letter that shows what was fixed on the van etc and said the guy who fitted the tyre was anmot tester, he had left his name and company but he didn't have a mot testing site number because he was a mobile mechanic.So forward on sending that letter off and then having it sent back... i went on a holiday for a week, it was something i had booked months in advance, way beforei had been given this offence. I then come back to see this letter returned yet again to me, now with 4 days left of them 21 days... Telling me i had to get an mot tester with a mot testing site number to check the vehicle and it had to be back to there offices within the 21 days of the offence.So i quickly got an mot tester at a local garage ( which i had to pay ) to check it over and then sent it back off to the police, i assume they have received itout with the 21 days ( even although the slip i got from the police that the mot tester had to fill out was dated before the 21 days) this is why they havedecided to prosecute me?I'm also not 100% certain of the words on this letter, it states that i can pay a fine of 100 pounds as an alternative to a prosecution?but then further down the letter it says i pay the 100 pounds, 3 points will be endorsed on my license.Just looking for some advice here, i have 9 points on my license already from years ago ( tried to appeal speeding on a motorway )that are due to come off soon but if i am given 3 points for this i'll lose my license.Thanks.