31
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Is it worth getting a lawyer?
« on: August 25, 2026, 03:59:51 pm »
Not on my watch, thankyou very much.
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.
32
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Advice on handling a speeding ticket that was never sent
« on: August 25, 2026, 08:05:01 am »
If the DVLA are being helpful (which I believe is one of the signs of an impending apocalypse), then I would be minded to try to get as much info from them as possible - to try to narrow down exactly what info was provided by the court - before asking the court again.
A question that the webchat people would probably need to escalate is what they (the DVLA) would require (presumably from the court) in order to rescind the endorsement applied in response to an ostensibly lawful instruction from the court.
A question that the webchat people would probably need to escalate is what they (the DVLA) would require (presumably from the court) in order to rescind the endorsement applied in response to an ostensibly lawful instruction from the court.
33
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Advice on handling a speeding ticket that was never sent
« on: August 24, 2026, 08:38:00 pm »
£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.
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.
34
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Advice on handling a speeding ticket that was never sent
« on: August 24, 2026, 07:20:00 pm »
N.B. Started typing this a few posts ago...
For the sake of completeness, unless there has been an almighty snafu, 3 points for speeding do not get put on your licence unless someone has given what would appear to be your details, as their own details, as driver.
For speeding, either the driver is stopped at the time by the police and gives their details (or potentially someone else's), or a NIP with s. 172 requirement to name the driver is sent to the RK. If the RK is not the driver, they nominate the driver (or keeper), who receives their own notice, until the recipient responds admitting to being the driver.
Your driver record on the DVLA portal should show the convicting court code (off the top of my head, not sure whether this would be the same code for a fixed penalty processed by the Fixed Penalty Clerk) - but a fixed penalty would be £100 and the chances of a fine being exactly £100 are slim.
Conventional wisdom suggests that unless a person holds a foreign licence, it should not be possible to accept a fixed penalty without providing their licence number and date of birth (which is trivially encoded into the licence number).
<mod hat on>
Before we descend any further into rabbit holes of speculation, it would seem to be prudent for the OP to confirm whether the fine amount was £100 on their driver record, and any other information that might be relevant (without unnecessarily disclosing sensitive identifiable personal information
</>
For the sake of completeness, unless there has been an almighty snafu, 3 points for speeding do not get put on your licence unless someone has given what would appear to be your details, as their own details, as driver.
For speeding, either the driver is stopped at the time by the police and gives their details (or potentially someone else's), or a NIP with s. 172 requirement to name the driver is sent to the RK. If the RK is not the driver, they nominate the driver (or keeper), who receives their own notice, until the recipient responds admitting to being the driver.
Your driver record on the DVLA portal should show the convicting court code (off the top of my head, not sure whether this would be the same code for a fixed penalty processed by the Fixed Penalty Clerk) - but a fixed penalty would be £100 and the chances of a fine being exactly £100 are slim.
Conventional wisdom suggests that unless a person holds a foreign licence, it should not be possible to accept a fixed penalty without providing their licence number and date of birth (which is trivially encoded into the licence number).
<mod hat on>
Before we descend any further into rabbit holes of speculation, it would seem to be prudent for the OP to confirm whether the fine amount was £100 on their driver record, and any other information that might be relevant (without unnecessarily disclosing sensitive identifiable personal information
</>
35
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Advice on handling a speeding ticket that was never sent
« on: August 24, 2026, 06:13:10 pm »
We have seen similar previously. I can't recall ever seeing a resolution - or perhaps more importantly I can't recall anything which illustrated a simple resolution that didn't involve the OP banging their head against several brick walls, whilst dealing with seemingly intransigent public bodies.
Working backwards, logically, somebody (a court or fixed penalty clerk) has instructed the DVLA to endorse a licence with 3 points. Who that was and what information was provided is something that the DVLA would be best placed to answer - if it were not for the fact that they are more intransigent than HMCTS.
As regards a stat. dec. - technically it is not applicable if *you* were not convicted. However, if we were at the point where it was established to the satisfaction of all parties that court X convicted "you", and that was the only way to get the case re-opened, I would consider it to be the only option, other than the appeal of last resort (Judicial Review).
There is potential for distinctions to tread worrying close to FMOTL bollox - if the OP's name is fraudulently provided, when does the name equate to the person? IMHO when the information provided meant that the DVLA had no choice but to endorse the OP's licence (as opposed to same/similar name, close enough, not my problem).
On the basis that intransigence might result in having to lodge an out of time appeal of some description, I would suggest that it is more important than in most cases where it is already important that the OP keeps a contemporaneous diary of all communications in respect of this matter. And is as proactive as is reasonably conducive to retaining sanity.
Working backwards, logically, somebody (a court or fixed penalty clerk) has instructed the DVLA to endorse a licence with 3 points. Who that was and what information was provided is something that the DVLA would be best placed to answer - if it were not for the fact that they are more intransigent than HMCTS.
As regards a stat. dec. - technically it is not applicable if *you* were not convicted. However, if we were at the point where it was established to the satisfaction of all parties that court X convicted "you", and that was the only way to get the case re-opened, I would consider it to be the only option, other than the appeal of last resort (Judicial Review).
There is potential for distinctions to tread worrying close to FMOTL bollox - if the OP's name is fraudulently provided, when does the name equate to the person? IMHO when the information provided meant that the DVLA had no choice but to endorse the OP's licence (as opposed to same/similar name, close enough, not my problem).
On the basis that intransigence might result in having to lodge an out of time appeal of some description, I would suggest that it is more important than in most cases where it is already important that the OP keeps a contemporaneous diary of all communications in respect of this matter. And is as proactive as is reasonably conducive to retaining sanity.
36
News / Press Articles / Re: Thousands of drivers wrongly fined for speeding since 2021
« on: August 21, 2026, 10:32:08 pm »
Presumably a continuation of the same issue - delay between VSL changing and the speed limit being enforced being updated.
I'm sure it has been discussed in greater detail, but CBA to find the presumably earlier thread.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/motoring/major-uk-motorway-speed-camera-37567292
I'm sure it has been discussed in greater detail, but CBA to find the presumably earlier thread.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/motoring/major-uk-motorway-speed-camera-37567292
37
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Is it worth appealing a speeding ban? Totting up.
« on: August 19, 2026, 10:44:14 am »
So, your barrister, who gets paid whether you win or lose, thought it was worth paying him £2k.
You seem to think that we can give meaningful advice on whether it is worth appealing to the Crown Court, based solely on your opinion that there was sufficient evidence for the magistrates to be able to find that a 6 month ban would cause exceptional hardship.
You seem to think that we can give meaningful advice on whether it is worth appealing to the Crown Court, based solely on your opinion that there was sufficient evidence for the magistrates to be able to find that a 6 month ban would cause exceptional hardship.
38
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: 85/90mph in a 50 zone (A1, NW London), inconsistent speed readings, 3 month gap, disability mitigation
« on: August 15, 2026, 02:11:32 pm »2.The guidelines for 85 in a 50 limit suggest either a ban of up to 56 days or six points. Strictly speaking you have no right to argue that a ban will cause you “exceptional hardship” (that is only available for “totting up” bans). But the court will consider your circumstances when making their decision.
The distinction is that when a driver tots up to 12 points,as a matter of law, the court has no discretion not to disqualify him for at least 6 months unless they find that such a ban would cause excessive hardship. For all other cases that involve obligatory endorsement, the court can use their usual discretion to determine whether or not it would be appropriate to disqualify the driver.
39
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: 85/90mph in a 50 zone (A1, NW London), inconsistent speed readings, 3 month gap, disability mitigation
« on: August 14, 2026, 07:24:42 pm »
To be blunt, if you want us to give meaningful advice based on a vague description of "the document", you'd be better off going elsewhere.
40
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Red-light camera offence – unclear stop-line evidence and white van nearby
« on: August 13, 2026, 01:42:26 pm »
For the sake of completeness, for evidential purposes, and in the context of fixed red light cameras, if the photos don't show that the car has moved, it matters not one jot whether it was stopped beyond the line - the prosecution must prove that some (any) part of the vehicle moved forwards across the line while the red light was showing.
41
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: First Speeding NIP - Norfolk
« on: August 12, 2026, 02:33:02 pm »
If you weren't speeding, that would be a defence. However, I am struggling to see anything in your post (other than your claim that you weren't speeding) that supports your claim.
Slightly curious as to how a lorry was turned into a transit van by the speed gun, but that might constitute duress of circumstances.
Slightly curious as to how a lorry was turned into a transit van by the speed gun, but that might constitute duress of circumstances.
42
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Intended prosecution 59 in a 30
« on: August 10, 2026, 07:28:55 pm »
You would have been at the top end of Band C of the old sentencing guidelines (51-60 in a 30) which was 6 points *or* a short ban (7-56 days) and a Band C fine regardless of whether points or a ban.
Band C is now simply 51+ (in a 30 limit) - so again, 6 points *or* a short ban. The fine with a guilty plea would be equivalent to 100% Relevant Weekly Income plus 40% surcharge plus ~£90 prosecution costs.
If you plead guilty and don't request a hearing in response to the SJPN, the SJ will either give you 6 points and fine as above, or if he thinks that a ban ought to be considered he will remit it for a regular court hearing for sentencing.
Band C is now simply 51+ (in a 30 limit) - so again, 6 points *or* a short ban. The fine with a guilty plea would be equivalent to 100% Relevant Weekly Income plus 40% surcharge plus ~£90 prosecution costs.
If you plead guilty and don't request a hearing in response to the SJPN, the SJ will either give you 6 points and fine as above, or if he thinks that a ban ought to be considered he will remit it for a regular court hearing for sentencing.
43
Speeding and other criminal offences / MOVED: Video of me in my vehicle on X
« on: August 08, 2026, 02:25:41 pm »44
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: 24 in a 20 but not offered course
« on: August 06, 2026, 09:59:13 pm »
Tell me that you couldn't be bothered to read the "READ THIS FIRST" sticky, without telling me that you couldn't be bothered to read the "READ THIS FIRST" sticky.
45
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Car stopped over red line and red light ticket issued.
« on: July 27, 2026, 11:07:16 pm »It was on a 50mph road and the lights changed suddenly.
The amber light must be lit for 3 seconds +/- 0.25 seconds before the lights turn red. otherwise it is not a prescribed sign. However, I suspect that by "the lights changed suddenly" what you really mean is that you weren't paying proper attention and got caught out.
Quote
Rather than speed up I slowed down for safety reasons. I stopped safely, but was over the white line. This is clear from the images that show that I did not cross the intersection and that my brake lights are on.
If any part of your vehicle crossed the stop line while the lights were red, the offence is committed. Technically the same offence is committed if any part of your vehicle crossed on amber, unless it was not safe to stop, but that is not the allegation you are facing
Quote
I would like special consideration in this case even though I am aware that crossing the white line is an offence. A picture of the letter is linked below.
And I would like to wake up next to Alyson Hannigan. Which also isn't going to be happening.