Free Traffic Legal Advice

I should think "time into red" is an important factor. Plus I doubt they will offer a course if an accident was caused.

Unlike speeding, here seems to be no published consistent criteria for the police to offer a course for red light infringements. It's entirely up to the individual force.

It wasn’t me that filled up, it was a family member, friend etc.
As the registered keeper, you are liable for any fines unless the party responsible volunteers to take responsibility for the case."

Their FAQs also says this:

"The car doesn’t belong to me I sold it

The information from DVLA still shows you as the registered keeper at the date of event, unless you can provide evidence that this is not the case the liability still lies with you"

The way these people operate is disgraceful. They are citing provisions in criminal law relating to VED and properly framed provisions to transfer responsibility to RKs so as to chase debts.

I haven’t heard of “Pay My Fuel” (PMF). However there have been a number of threads on another forum with similar topics involving a firm of solicitors called QDR. They operate on a similar model.

Their letters do not mention an intended prosecution nor do they mention a penalty charge.

There were different opinions in responses to those threads. The principal issue that I could see was that QDR make their demand solely on the basis that the person they demand payment from is the Registered Keeper. It seems “Pay My Fuel” do the same. That’s not surprising as they have no idea who was actually responsible for the alleged debt.

QDR have no interest in pursuing anybody other than the RK. In one thread the RK was not in the car at the time and he offered to provide the driver’s details to QDR. They didn’t want to know. In another the debt arose because of a fault with he “Pay at Pump” system. The driver had inserted a card and had £100 holding sum debited. The pump was supposed to see him charged with the cost of the fuel and his £100 returned. It failed to charge for the fuel but his deposit was returned in full and he didn’t notice this until after QDR had become involved. Again, QDR were not interested. I would imagine PMF operate similarly.

My view is that these charges can only be levied on a contractual basis and to do that PMF would have to show who was party to the contract. I don’t see how they can do that in most cases. Only after they have done that would the terms of he contract become relevant.

"...he first told me I'd have to pay the fine.

He seems as legally ignorant as PMF seem to be. In general, only courts can impose fines.

I take it Morrisons now know that you were the driver at the time?

From what you say you do not have a viable defence. You can try contacting your insurers to see if they would provide cover in those circumstances, though I doubt they would.

If you are convicted in court the court must impose a minimum of six points, which will see you liable to a ban under “totting up". They do have the option to impose a short ban instead of points but they’re very unlikely to do so.

You will have the opportunity to make an “Exceptional Hardship” argument so as to avoid a ban. You will have to convince the court that you or others will suffer hardship that is over and above that which any driver would normally suffer if he was banned.

Here is the guidance the court uses when considering such an argument:

When considering whether there are grounds to reduce or avoid a totting up disqualification the court should have regard to the following:

It is for the offender to prove to the civil standard of proof that such grounds exist. Other than very exceptionally, this will require evidence from the offender, and where such evidence is given, it must be sworn.

Where it is asserted that hardship would be caused, the court must be satisfied that it is not merely inconvenience, or hardship, but exceptional hardship for which the court must have evidence.

Almost every disqualification entails hardship for the person disqualified and their immediate family. This is part of the deterrent objective of the provisions combined with the preventative effect of the order not to drive.

If a motorist continues to offend after becoming aware of the risk to their licence of further penalty points, the court can take this circumstance into account.

Courts should be cautious before accepting assertions of exceptional hardship without evidence that alternatives (including alternative means of transport) for avoiding exceptional hardship are not viable.

Loss of employment will be an inevitable consequence of a driving ban for many people. Evidence that loss of employment would follow from disqualification is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate exceptional hardship; whether or not it does will depend on the circumstances of the offender and the consequences of that loss of employment on the offender and/or others.

So what “exceptional hardship” will you or others suffer?

Driving with excess alcohol.

Then unfortunately you will face a minimum of 12 months disqualification. It will probably be more than that as the guideline sentence for the level is 17 to 22 months.

The court should allow you to pay any fine/ costs etc. in instalments.

Respond to the SJPN by pleading not guilty to both offences. In the "reasons for pleading not guilty" section say you are willing to plead guilty to the speeding offence on the condition that the "failure to provide driver's details" charge is dropped.

Before the pandemic it was necessary to attend court to negotiate this "deal". When the pandemic hit courts were obviously keen to avoid as many personal attendances as possible and arrangements were made for this deal to be accepted without a court attendance. Many courts have continued with this process but some have reverted to requiring a  personal appearance. If you make your intentions clear in response to the SJPN you may be saved a trip.

In the “mitigation” section you can explain that the reason for your predicament was your failure to update your V5C. You could then ask if the court might consider sentencing you at a level equivalent to the fixed penalty. They  have guidance which suggests they might do so in some circumstances:

“Where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances.”

Of course it was your fault that you did not receive the “request for driver’s details”, but don’t ask and you won’t get.

All this assumes, of course that you were the driver at the time. If you were not all bets are off.

I will be alone and check if duty Sollicitor is available to guide or help me.

The duty solicitor should be available to speak on your behalf.