Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - mdann52

Pages: [1] 2
1
What's on the letter is irrelevant, and minor errors can be corrected at court.

How does one correct an error in a letter at court?

Because the live witness can explain and correct the error,  surely? Especially if it's something like an incorrect photo at this stage, which isn't even required?


I also doubt you got a NIP from Devon and Cornwall police for driving on the M4!


Sorry, typo! Meant M5, of course.

Thing is, as it's the actual speed photo that contains the error, if "rear plate" does refer to the numberplate then the speed may be incorrect - i.e. it may be measuring the speed of a car travelling on the other carriageway in the other direction.  So it's more fundamental than just something like a typo in a letter.

At this point, you're only being asked to name who was driving the vehicle at the time.

EROS is the system used to produce NIPs - the chances are they have the correct image and have simply used a different frame. Was this a static camera or a mobile camera van? However, the chances are some overworked Police Staff member has simply selected the wrong drop-down box on the software.

The pictures on the NIP have no relevant however, as they are just to identify the vehicle involved rather than being the "evidential copies" relied on further down the line.

2
What were the speeds and limits for each offence?

Did you send the licence details off as directed? There is a different address to send them off to that isn't the police normally, and the licence details go to the courts

3
To be perfectly honest, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference here. What's on the letter is irrelevant, and minor errors can be corrected at court.

I also doubt you got a NIP from Devon and Cornwall police for driving on the M4!

Regardless of any errors on the letter, you are obliged to name the driver

For that speed, you'll be offered a course if you haven't done one in the last 3 years, or a CoFP for 3 points and 100

4
I wrote back, explaining my position, pleading for the same fines/points to be imposed as per the fixed penalty notice. Explained, that as a Heath care worker, need my license to work, as I work across the country as a temp.


I think what exactly you wrote in this letter is important, as the court seem to have believed you were trying to make a defence point against the allegation, or otherwise argue a legal point (such as "Special Reasons not to Endorse") , and decided you need to appear in person to make the point correctly or to question your plea.

If you attend court, you may be able to argue for a fixed penalty alternative. This does seem to be at the lower end for Driving with Due Care and Attention, so I would expect 3-4 points and an income-related fine of around 50% of your weekly income. This will be discounted if you plead guilty.

5
I have had a quick look and there is nothing in the Act about the management of payments for road user charges. It does seem quite unfair the way they deal with payments that are not used "on the day".

I thought you were buying, in effect, a "licence" for a given day, so I wouldn't expect if you don't use it you would be able to get it back.
The regs are definitely silent on refunds!
But when you pay in advance, I don't think any date is required.

I've just checked, and if you pay on the UK GOV site you are required to select date(s) even in advance

6
I can't see a route to the tribunal, for Moving Traffic in London the ground of "PCN was paid" doesn't seem to be valid grounds to submit a SD.

I think CP was saying to pay the Charge Certificate and submit a formal complaint to the council to get reimbursed, however.

OP - do you have email confirmation that payment was completed? That seems to be the key bit of evidence in the case CP linked above

7
The s. 172 requirement incorporated into the NIP isn't invalid under these circumstance, and the driver still needs to be named.

However, if the police have failed to serve the NIP on the registered keeper within 14 days, and there are no issues with details, then any prosecution should be barred by S1 Road Traffic Offenders Act

9
I have had a quick look and there is nothing in the Act about the management of payments for road user charges. It does seem quite unfair the way they deal with payments that are not used "on the day".

I thought you were buying, in effect, a "licence" for a given day, so I wouldn't expect if you don't use it you would be able to get it back.
The regs are definitely silent on refunds!

10
So just to clarify, you appealed to London Tribunals, they refused to process the appeal as you did not send authorisation from the Registered Keeper to do so. Have you then started a new case or submitted additional evidence?

This would be more useful if we have a list of dates - "NoR issues X, Tribunal case started Y, contacted Z, replied ZZ" etc. If there was some sort of hearing on the second, this might just be a procedural one to decide if your case evidence supported allowing you to represent the RK, it could be any number of things.

Have London Tribunals confirmed the case is still open?

11
In case it helps - GSV is here

The location on the appeal (Retail Market (Circ Road)) also doesn't appear to correspond to the location the PNC is issued, which might be an possible point, but this may not be the strongest case or avenue I will admit.

Note to self - map tile Q24 contains the restriction, Cov don't seem to have published this with the order however

12
Furthermore, there was no preceding notification sign to alert us of the upcoming CAZ.

Be careful with this point - expect the council to point out the advanced warning signs here or here if you approached from the A37, or here if you approached from St Johns Lane.

In London, first-time offenders who are unfamiliar with the CAZ are typically given a warning rather than an immediate penalty.

TfL stopped doing this a long while back. The CAZ has been in place for over 18 months now and, from memory, they did issue warnings for the first few months

Other than that (putting my disagreements about the "amount exceeded point aside, which others will tell me I'm wrong about!), I think this looks ok

13
I'm aware of the DART case, but my reading of that adjudication decision, and the differentiating factor here, is that because the charge was paid, trying to charge him twice was unlawful. Also, DART used to include the amount as one charge, rather than the PCN and road charge amounts.

I'm not convinced the case assists here as much, but I'm happy to be an outlier on this point though!

From memory Bristol changed their documents a while back to show the PCN amount and outstanding payment separately, rather than as a combined total, which might satisfy 7(3)(f), as it does now list the penalty charge due. I can't see anything in those regs that also stops them listing the CAZ charge that is due separately. I can see why they are unwilling to go in front of of the TPT though!

14
Out of interest, where has this "the council cannot recover the Clean Air charge" come from?

From my reading, Reg 4(4) allows the Charging Order to decide if the cost for the road user charge is added to the PCN.

The Bristol Charging Order 11(1) allows them to charge the Road User Charge when a penalty is issued.

I may have missed the argument elsewhere, but on the surface it does appear the legislation allows this. Yes the legislation is badly written, but I can't see where it doesn't allow this to happen

15
Then the advice stands - plead NG, go to the hearing and defend the case.

Even though they have not complied with the offer by their own admission, by failing to provide the required details with the CoFP to allow licence endorsing?

OP - I think your best off pleading guilty here if you did not send off drivers details as prescribed when paying the CoFP. This will get you 33% off.

I'm not convinced competing one section of a "Super NIP" gets you off the hook if it says to send licence details elsewhere for endorsement.

Pages: [1] 2