Free Traffic Legal Advice

I do not believe it could have caught adequate evidence to prove the registration did not conform to regulations.

I don't quite understand what your argument is.

I assume you are not disputing it was your car. That being the case, the camera was sufficiently well placed to capture its registration mark or you would not have received the notice.

Whatever issues you have with the allegation itself you must respond to the request for driver's details.

Is there a photo?  It's doubtful there would be enough details of the plate regarding maker/supplier/ BS marks from a fixed camera photograph 'cos hundreds of 'iffy' plates must be flashed every day

I have no idea what evidence there is yet, I assume I will be able to see that once I identify the driver. I'm familiar with the regs you posted and as above, it's possible that it only meets the diagonal view from one angle, not t'other. BUT how would they prove that with a photo from one angle? That's going to be my point in the future, I suspect.

Apologies, I understand where you are coming from now.

Quote

I have no idea what evidence there is yet, I assume I will be able to see that once I identify the driver.

No you won't. If you are offered a fixed penalty you either accept the allegation as it stands or you decline (or ignore) the offer and face prosecution in court. Only then will you be provided with he evidence the police intend to rely on to convict you.

If you intend to do that you need to make sure you are fully familiar with the regs because failure will be very expensive. This diagram explains it:

https://ibb.co/Cw0qfSB

The point of area from  which the plate needs to be readable is beneath the centre point of the plate, not the car so you need to bear that in mind if your plate is offset.

Thanks, I am not sure I am interpreting your drawing properly. This is my interpretation of the regulations below. It's interesting that you point out it's based on the location of the plate, not the centre of the car (of course not ALL cars have the plate mounted centrally). Whilst that is of slight benefit in my case, potentially, it may not be enough. However, I still want to know how they can prove the contravention by having a single point of view from the roadside.

I've also included an indicative photo of the plate location from the front perspective.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

If you are replying to the previous post in its entirety, there is no need to quote it!

It seems strange that a relatively minor offence would warrant such attention.  Is there more to this matter than appears at first reading?

That was my thought too...  Is it on the plate it was MOT'd on?  It's presumably been unreadable by the computer and flagged for human intervention, so unlikely it is a minor technical infringement on placement. 

@baroudeur @RichardW - Thanks for your replies. To give some extra context (there's always some, right?):

There was an event for the public held at a commercial premises. At least in one instance, the police had set themselves up road-side nearby to 'catch' potential offenders leaving the event.

As far as I am aware, the police were only present on the near-side of the road, pulling people into a layby. I do not know what device or location was used to capture evidence in relation to the allegations against me. My assumption it was a mobile/portable camera used as part of this temporary road-side posture.

@RichardW - To answer your MOT question, yes the vehicle was MOT'd with this plate. However, the MOT rules don't go into the same level of detail as the Act would require (e.g. MOT tester isn't going to stand 22 metres away from the vehicle at 45 degrees to read the plate).

@baroudeur The vehicle would have been moving at time of evidence capturing, so no notice on the vehicle, hence the NIP.

So did return the s172 request, and the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty arrived last week.. Attached to post. Looks like I wouldn't get to see any evidence, as people have pointed out, unless I take it to court.

I am pretty confident that there is practically no way the police could have clear evidence that the plate was not fully readable from a 90 degree window of viewing. They may have it from one viewpoint, but multiple? Doubtful.

It's just £100, I get it. I also think things should be right and proper, but as I get older I am somewhat of a pragmatist, and appreciate there's no practical way the police could enforce this rule whilst a vehicle is mobile, unless the plate is missing or something very obvious.

What are the potential implications of taking this to court? Is there a way this could go to court and not cost me more than £100? Even taking time off work is worth more than that to me.

What if I am found guilty? Is that a criminal record? I get DBS checked for my job. I need to consider this.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Is there a way this could go to court and not cost me more than £100?

Yes, if you plead not guilty and are acquitted. If you are convicted it will cost you probably £1k. Even with a guilty plea, the prosecution costs alone will be around £100. The "victim surcharge" might double that (depending on your income) and that's before you get to the fine).