Free Traffic Legal Advice

As the OP is no doubt aware, the stock advice is never to buy a car without a V5C.
Why the OP might think that we would advise otherwise is beyond me.

Presumably he has in mind the common law principle of Crown Immunity, which was largely repealed as recently as 1948 by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, and probably further eroded by the Human Rights Act 1998. Not everyone has access to LexisNexis, Westlaw et al.

Not starting your thread in the News / Press Articles would have been a good start.

An even better start would be to read the READ THIS FIRST sticky in the Private Parking forum.

An inappropriately targetted consultation would seem to be equally problematic. In practice, failure to consider and failure to consult are 2 sides of the same coin.

At the risk of appearing blunt (cue shocked cries of "Oh no", "Surely not" and "Don't call me Shirley"), the OP's post is very heavy on the "oh, woe is me" and very light on relevant details.

To all intents and purposes, the OP currently has 0 points, has received 5 NIPs for 5 separate speeding offences, all from the sane camera for speeds between 32 and 36 in a 20 limit. The OP has been offered an SAC for one of these (presumably the offence in the 32-36 range that was 31mph or lower, as SACs are not generally offered for more than 10% +9mph over the limit), and received COFPs for the other 4 (despite one of the offences being 36 in a 20, whereas COFPs are not generally offered for speeds of more than 34 (rounded down) in a 20 limit).

Ignoring discrepancies between the OP's claims and widely understood guidelines followed by the sausage machine, the obvious detail would appear to be that, we are told that the OP has received 4 COFPs - so 4 assuming that the SAC takes care of the 5th offence, 4 active cases (and the one case - one thread rule is exempted in this case) and has told us that he has requested that his case be heard in court.

Unless there is more that the OP has chosen not to trouble us with, he is potentially facing 4 separate court hearings. This could be a problem.

Whilst the COFPs [apparently] offered disposal for 3 points a go, at court they are all "Band B" offences - so 4-6 points each. If heard together, whether the OP ended up with 12, 16 or 24 points (or any number of points greater or equal to 12), he would have totted up once, and have the opportunity to present an exceptional hardship argument, which could potentially obviate the 6 month totting ban. If the ban is avoided, the points remain relevant for subsequently totting up if he gains any more points for offences within 3 years of those points, but the grounds for a successful exceptional hardship argument cannot be used again for another 3 years.

If the cases are not all heard together, and if the bench follow the sentencing guidelines, the first 3 to be heard would result in at least 12 points (whether heard together or separately), and the OP would have an opportunity to present his exceptional hardship argument, which, if successful, he would not be able to use when he totted up again when the points for the fourth case took his total of relevant points to 12 or more.

So, no then.

This topic has been moved to The Flame Pit.

https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?topic=6943.0

In layman's terms, if the director(s) are to blame (whether through a positive act or through neglect) for the company getting fined for failing to identify the driver, they can also be penalised (which includes getting points on their licence)

If you don't know what you're talking about, please refrain from posting bollox