Free Traffic Legal Advice

I wondered that, sp. But the VS amount fits the fine.

I wouldn't pop up here flag waving for a self serving **** like AGT. If you said the sky was blue he would insist that you didn't know what you were talking about and only he could properly advise on the what colour the sky was.

   

Where's that "Best Answer" button?

***Mod edit***
Much as I am minded to disregard advice regarding mocking the afflicted in Mr Thomspon's case, continuing what is effectively an irrelevant hijack of the OP's case does not assist the OP.

Agreed. Apologies to the learned moderator and to the OP. - NJ

The only way to avoid any points at all (and so avoid facing a “totting up” ban) is to plead not guilty to the “Fail to Provide (FtP) charges and successfully defend them in court on the basis that it was not reasonably practical for you to respond to the requests as you did not receive them. Unfortunately the police enjoy the “presumption of service” which means they only have to prove that they posted the notice to your last known address (as held by the DVLA) and they are presumed “served” on you two working days later.

The burden of proof to convince they were not is yours and it’s very difficult to prove a negative. In those circumstances the speeding charges have no legs because the police have no proof to show who was driving – that comes from the responses that you did not provide.

The alternative, which is available only for offences where you accept you were the driver, is to plead not guilty to both of the charges arising from each incident but to offer to plead guilty to the speeding charges provided the FtP charges are dropped. This is a tried and tested strategy for drivers in your circumstances. Unfortunately, this will not help you avoid facing a totting up ban as each speeding offence will carry a minimum of three points.

In any case, from what you have said, his second option would not be available to you for the second incident as you were not driving. So you will either have to plead guilty to that charge or try to defend it. A conviction for that offence carries a hefty fine, six points and an endorsement code (MS90) which insurers hate. It will see your premiums increased considerably for up to five years, with a 100% increase in the first year not unusual.

You can avoid a totting up ban if you can convince the court that you or others will face “exceptional hardship” if you are banned. This means hardship over and above which any driver would normally face as a result of being banned.

As an aside, your concerns about the evidence for the speeding offences are irrelevant. They will not be progressed unless you adopt the option I mentioned above for the September offence. This will mean accepting you were the driver and pleading guilty to speeding. Your guilty plea means you accept the allegation as it stands and the evidence will not be tested. For the January offence speeding will not be an issue t all as it will not be continued.

"with respect it's no good putting it on a rail forum, the daughter was travelling on a bus."

There are people on Rail.uk with expertise in fare enforcement of all types, Roy.

In particular, TfL's procedures for handling bus fare evasion are almost identical to that employed for their rail fares.

It has a "Fares advice" section but also a dedicated section for buses & coaches:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/

You haven’t said, but did you actually attend the hearing where the court agreed to quash your conviction?

I’m assuming you did and that you performed a “Statutory Declaration”. If so, was the charge put to you again and were you asked to enter  plea?

Would the school provide any assistance?

And would they be easily able to replace you if they had to "let you go"? If he answer is "no", you will need evidence to support that.

Here's the guidance the Magistrates will have in mind when considering your "Exceptional Hardship" 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.

As you can see, loss of employment alone is not normally deemed sufficient to avoid disqualification.

Unfortunately there is a lo of rubbish and nonsense posted in various places about motoring law enforcement.

Magistrates have the power to impose a discretionary disqualification of any length for any offence which carries an endorsement. However, they are bound by law to follow the sentencing guidelines and must give their reasons if they depart from them. TThe guidelines for speeding are here:

https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/speeding-revised-2017/?source=7510

As you can see, the guideline sentence for 50mpn in a 30mph limit is either a ban of 7-28 days or between four and six points and it covers speeds of 41-50mph. The overwhelming likelihood in your case is six points. This is borne out by experience of drivers who have reported back after posting on here and from a few posters who have court experience in various roles.

My recommendations are twofold:

1. Never, ever, seek or accept legal advice from serving or former police officers*.

2. If you need any advice of a similar nature in future, stick to this site. It is effectively moderated; trolling is not permitted and is quickly shut down; you will get opinions from people who have a good idea of what they are talking about (as opposed to nonsensical suggestions such as the latest one you have learned)..

Do let us know the outcome. This helps us advise others.


[* - Mod edit - this applies to people whose sole "qualification" for giving legal advice is being an ex-cop.]