Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

Essex Police sent me a NIP for exceeding 50 mph "in contravention of a local traffic order". I was done on an "automatic camera device".

I was in the area on the date and at time stated, but have no recollection of a junction, signs or roadworks that could have been present when the camera took images of my car. I have no memory of a camera flash either - and it was late at night on a country road.

I confirmed I was the driver at the time of the alleged offence have received a letter that restates the vague location (which I cannot pinpoint on google maps) and the offence, offering a speed awareness course or to accept a £100 fine and three points.

Images are not included and there is no detail about how fast I was actually going - I am certain it was not much over 50mph.

There is a number to call and an email address for "queries relating to the offence or issuing of the fixed penalty notice".

I intend to request the images and ask for the precise location where they were taken, and if there were temporary restrictions in place. That way I can try to check if this has been issued correctly.

Any other suggestions before I do? Happy to provide as much info as necessary!

Thanks all.

It's a pity you didn't ask for photos to help identify the driver and/or location before you identified yourself as the driver.

Identifying your self as the driver rather suggests that you know the location - otherwise how could you identify yourself?

AIUI the police are under no obligation to supply "images" or other evidence at this stage.  You will only get that if the case goes to court.

If you are asking for evidence now, the danger is the police will interpret that as you refusing both the offers of a course or a fixed penalty, and your case will go to court.

But see what others think

Many thanks both.

@Gilan02 The location is listed as "A120 PELLENS CORNER, NEAR J/W CLACTON ROAD, LITTLE BENTLEY".

@ManxTom I see your point. However I confirmed myself as the driver as I was on the A120 at the stated time and time. I am the sole driver of the car and it's registered in my name.

However given I cannot pinpoint the precise location based on the info they've given me, I have seen no evidence that the 50mph restriction was in place.  If "local traffic order" means temporary restrictions, presumably it is reasonable for me to request evidence that the correct signs were present and that advance warning to drivers was given? Otherwise I am just taking their word for it. I think it would be different if I could remember the restriction - but I have no memory whatsoever of a temp limit, camera signs or a flash.

But see what others think

Indeed.

It's a pity you didn't ask for photos to help identify the driver and/or location before you identified yourself as the driver.

Struggling to see how this helps the OP. Perhaps you are suggesting that if he were to modify a DeLorean and reach 88mph (preferably somewhere where there are no speed cameras) and ask for said photos before identifying himself?

Identifying your self as the driver rather suggests that you know the location - otherwise how could you identify yourself?

I would suggest otherwise.
If I was driving my car, that nobody else drives, from London to Newcastle and received a NIP relating to some vague location in Yorkshire part way through my journey, I think both that I would have a pretty good idea that I was driving, and that a bench would take a pretty dim view of a response saying that I don't know whether I or my car was there as I do not recall being caught, and cannot be certain that the location is correct, plates were not cloned or misread, and/or that I had not been abducted by aliens at the time.

AIUI the police are under no obligation to supply "images" or other evidence at this stage.

Correct

You will only get that if the case goes to court.

Probably

If you are asking for evidence now, the danger is the police will interpret that as you refusing both the offers of a course or a fixed penalty, and your case will go to court.

As regards the course (if applicable), correct. As regards the fixed penalty (assuming already offered), unless s. 75 RTOA 1988 has been amended to allow a COFP to be rescinded because the po-po didn't like his attitude, then not so much.

N.B. If a course has been offered (as opposed to tick here if you would like to be considered) then the alleged speed would be between 57 and 64 and/or if a COFP has been issued, between 57 and 75.

There isnt anything attached.
read the sticky on how to post and have another go at posting what is req.

Thanks - image uploaded now.

However given I cannot pinpoint the precise location based on the info they've given me, I have seen no evidence that the 50mph restriction was in place.  If "local traffic order" means temporary restrictions, presumably it is reasonable for me to request evidence that the correct signs were present and that advance warning to drivers was given? Otherwise I am just taking their word for it. I think it would be different if I could remember the restriction - but I have no memory whatsoever of a temp limit, camera signs or a flash.

I know the location well - Here.

It's been 50mph with SPECS cameras for quite a while - the signage is all correct.  SPECS do not flash.  No 'advance warning' is required other than the speed limit signs.  (But it does say average speed cameras)

It was dark at the time but the signs will be retroreflective.

I do not recall seeing signs for the average speed cameras, or for the 50mph limit. Doesn't mean they weren't there though, but ideally I would like reassurance they were before I accept the fine. Feels like I will just have to take their word for it and that they complied with the regs that allow them to issue fines/courses. I have won cases where authorities failed to do this and I have proved it - however this one is a long way from home and I don't know whereabouts to start looking even if I were to go back there.

I've posted a GSV of the area.  I'm not aware of any deficiencies but that's not to say there isn't any.