Free Traffic Legal Advice

Back in November My employer informed me they had received a attachment of earning order for £1,014 from 'Avon and Somerset Compliance and Enforcement.

Following a number of enquiries I became aware that I conviction and fine for 'Fail to give information relating to the identification of the driver/rider of a vehicle when required' on the 24th of November by phone HMCTS | Courts & Tribunal Service Centre. They also provided me with the original SJP from the 14/01/2025.

This made claims of an offence of speeding on the 17/07/2024 recorded by an enforcement officer and advises a NIP was sent on the 19/07/2024 and a reminder sent on the 09/08/2024 with no response received.

(none of these had been received by me at the address listed which was correct at the time)

After apparently being directed to the wrong link to complete or start a statutory deceleration online
[https://options-after-magistrates-court-decision.form.service.justice.gov.uk]
by 'HMCTS | Courts & Tribunal Service Centre' I was directed to [https://review-magistrates-court-decision.form.service.justice.gov.uk/] by the SJS. I completed both advising that this was the first I was aware of the issue and as such was ignorant of the proceedings. I also contacted Avon and Somerset Compliance & Enforcement regarding the fine to advise I had submitted this request for a statutory declaration and they advised they would proceed with taking the fine out of my earnings and I would be able to apply for a refund if the SD results in the fine being changed or revoked.

I received an email with the topic - 'STATUTORY DECLERATION' along with my case number and details and date for a hearing and details for connecting to an online hearing and further instructions. It wasn't clear to me from this if this hearing was to make a statutory declaration or a hearing for the original offense (as in the information I had provided I advised I would be willing to plead guilty to the original speeding offence and not the failure to give info) and so I contacted HMN CTS asking for clarification they essentially said I would received more information by post and that the hearing was in person as they could see a room booking.

Following this I've not received any further post (although this whole ordeal has given me much trust in my local postal service) but have received a further email reminder for the hearing advising that it is a remote hearing and referring to it as a statutory declaration/reopening hearing and not to attend the court.

Has anyone had any experience of this process and how it works?

Will I still have an opportunity to speak to the prosecutor before the hearing starts and ask to plead to the original offence (and if so how will this happen with it being remote?)

Also if I am able to plead to the original offence would the fine be likely to be reduced and how long would it take to get back any difference?

Any advice much appreciated.

I'm more seeking advice on navigating the online hearing as previous advice I had read focused on in person hearing where it was possible to speak to the prosecutor in advance.

At this point I'm assuming the information given by phone was incorrect given the more recent email confirms what was said by the previous one.

In the online form I selected 'no' to the did I commit the offence (the fail to give information) and did not answer to the 2nd offence as it said optional.  In the section 'Is there anything you want to add about the circumstances of the offence?' I answered 'As I did not receive any letters regarding charge of fail to provide drivers details and court case I am willing to plead guilty to the charge of speeding provided, and only provided, the “fail to provide driver’s details” charge is dropped'

Quote

In the online form I selected 'no' to the did I commit the offence (the fail to give information)…

If the form actually said that, I would suggest that it is unlawful. The accused has a constitutional right to plead not guilty - the question should be do you intend to plead guilty or not guilty, not "did you do it?"