Free Traffic Legal Advice

Probably because it contained fake news - such as the NIP to the RK must be posted within 14 days.

And "How does this help the OP?" would be Southpaw of the Yard

If this goes to court, tickets are irrelevant.
You can ask for a spicy meatfeast pizza, but it doesn't mean you're going to get it.
What he probably said was that obstructing an emergency vehicle is not a specific offence if you are not aware that you are obstructing it.
However, if he told you, on bodycam, that he doesn't think you committed any offence whatsoever, but he's going to stick you on anyway because who are the court going to believe, then you probably want to get a copy of the unredacted footage, including the earlier footage of him loosing his sh*t when Lord Lucan overtook him riding Shergar.

If hew was behind you for a significant time with blues and twos on, far enough back that he would have been clearly visible in your mirrors, and you failed to see him, that would seem to be evidence that your driving fell below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver.

That said, on the many, many times I have seen police with blues and twos being held up by oblivious drivers, I've never seen said drivers pulled over for obstructing an emergency vehicle, as the occifer had something more pressing to deal with - hence the blues and twos. However, if Morse had instructed Lewis to put the blues and twos on because he was fed up of sitting in traffic, he might be more inclined to stop and throw the book at someone who had failed to respect his authoritah.

I've never read any Kafka, but I know what Kafkaesque means.

We are dealing with two intransigent and incompetent state bodies who both both consider themselves to be *the law* (or otherwise above the law), and that this isn't their problem. Taking what the OP has told us at face value, one of them has f*cked up (possibly both, but Occam's razor suggests that that is unlikely).

Both bodies are overseen (to a greater or lesser extent) by the relevant ministers, and the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over all public bodies that are not directly answerable to Parliament.

The "appeal of last resort" is an application for Judicial Review (the High Court). If all else fails, IMHO the last resort would be to apply for a Judicial Review against both parties - Nottinghamshire Magistrates' Court and the DVLA. Whilst presumably one of those parties is innocent, the guilty party would be responsible for the innocent party necessarily being dragged through the process.

A Judicial Review application, as with virtually all litigation, has a pre-action protocol. That protocol (basically a Letter Before Action) might serve to readjust their "not my problem" attitude, although I wouldn't hold my breath.

Logically, if the court will inform the DVLA that they never ordered the endrosement of your licence, then it would seem to be irrational for the DVLA not to rescind the endorsement, and in the same vein, if the court were minded to do that, it would seem irrational for them not to further instruct the DVLA to rescind the endorsement.

What it is important to *focus* on what you know, rather than what you merely suspect, if this issue is the result of fraud (and perjury/perverting the course of justice/contempt of court/etc.) then the court could potentially have been blameless in their actions (although as a matter of law the conviction must be wrong, regardless of whether they should have known) - but *if* they did convict you wrongly due to fraud, they were IMHO clearly wrong not to find any record of it.

Personally, I consider endorsing a driver's licence without retaining a copy of the instruction to be exceedingly arrogant and systemically incompetent - or from the DVLA's perspective, business as usual.

IMHO the BBC are not interested in the facts, unless they support its agenda.

Not on my watch, thankyou very much.

£220 is not a fixed penalty. It is exactly the fine you would expect for a Band A offence (see Mags' Sentencing Guidelines) with no discount for a guilty plea (e.g. SJPN ignored) and an assumed RWI of £440 (no statement of means submitted).

This is consistent (but not conclusive) with someone naming (and purporting to be) you in response to a NIP addressed to you, and then burying their head in the sand when an SJPN arrived in your name.

Absent compelling reasons to the contrary, speeding cases should be heard at the court nearest to the offence, or a "linked court". Not sure whether the SJPN process would be an exception to this (it is not a conventional hearing).

Unless the DVLA have managed to outdo themselves on this occasion, an order for endorsement under your name (whether purporting to be you or someone else with the same name) came from Nottinghamshire Magistrates' Court on April 20th. Other than similarly not being fit for purpose, it is inexplicable (and/or unacceptable) that they are unable to find any record of that.

*If* the court are that incompetent, what can we be sure of?

Logically, either the court have f*cked up, or the DVLA have. Have you asked the DVLA webchat people if they have access to the instruction from the court? Did it have your correct and full name, date of birth and driver number?

Going back to the spite angle, would your ex have had access to the property when a NIP would have arrived (within 14 days of the date of offence if it was your vehicle and you are/were the RK with up to date details)? Unless paperwork sent to you as RK was intercepted, there is every reason to believe that your vehicle was not involved in the offence.