Free Traffic Legal Advice

I just returned home from a trip away and opened a letter from the Met Police which turned out to be a notice of intended prosecution by doing 24 in a 20 zone.

I don't recall speeding but a camera has obviously picked me up on the way to or from a tip to the local recycling centre at that speed.

My question comes from what I have read online (and its something that even the Met Police says it follows) around the NPCC National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance on speeds which is 10% +2. This apparently was amended to this in 2019 from 10% + 3.

Now I do know that the max limit you should travel at is that dictated on the road sign so I am not looking to argue that but I find the guidance confusing in relation to notices of intended prosecution.

The below is a FOI request responded to by the MPS where they state the 10% + rule.

https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/d/march-2022/current-guidance-relating-to-speed-cameras/

If this is the case would I have grounds to contest this notice? The speed limit was 20, 10% + 2 in my mind would mean that at 24 mph it would not trigger a notice of intended prosecution?

I have yet to respond to the notice and thought I would ask the question on here before doing so. The reason I am asking the question is because it does seem contradictory for the Met to state that are following NPCC guidance but on the other hand TFL (who I believe manage the cameras) are  not operating to the same policy?

The road I was travelling on and in question is the A205 Academy Road in London.

Is it worth contesting or provide details?

Any help/thoughts appreciated.

10% + 2 is where enforcement starts - so 24 in a 20. Even if that wasn’t so, it presents no legal defence.

Right OK understood, I have just done a bit more research and can see the guidance set out although still seems a bit misleading in my opinion.

Regardless I will provide them the info they require and go from there.

Quote from: Southpaw82 on April 14, 2024, 11:52:27 am

10% + 2 is where enforcement starts - so 24 in a 20. Even if that wasn’t so, it presents no legal defence.

I mean looking at this table how do they make a judgement whether a driver should receive an awareness course over points and fine? If you look at section 9.6.

https://library.college.police.uk/docs/appref/ACPO-Speed-Enforcement-Guidance.pdf

There will be circumstances I feel where a driver may go over the 20mph speed limit maybe to 23/24 to pass a cyclist etc and face prosecution for doing so.

An awareness course is offered up to 31 mph (provided one hasn't been completed in the previous three years). It is not offered "over" an FP, but as an alternative to one.

The law is the law. What you may "feel" is irrelevant.

Quote from: Jayd30 on April 14, 2024, 12:03:39 pm

Quote from: Southpaw82 on April 14, 2024, 11:52:27 am

10% + 2 is where enforcement starts - so 24 in a 20. Even if that wasn’t so, it presents no legal defence.

I mean looking at this table how do they make a judgement whether a driver should receive an awareness course over points and fine? If you look at section 9.6.

https://library.college.police.uk/docs/appref/ACPO-Speed-Enforcement-Guidance.pdf

There will be circumstances I feel where a driver may go over the 20mph speed limit maybe to 23/24 to pass a cyclist etc and face prosecution for doing so.

An awareness course is offered up to 31 mph (provided one hasn't been completed in the previous three years). It is not offered "over" an FP, but as an alternative to one.

The law is the law. What you may "feel" is irrelevant.

Thanks @666 I do appreciate that the law is the law and thanks for the confirmation of what the 10% + 2 rule means. In relation to the last part about what I feel is irrelevant, I was simply stating the case that given the way roads work and that on that particular road their are cycle lanes a motorist could fall foul to going over the 10% + 2 and find themselves with a notice of prosecution.

If nothing anyone felt in the world was irrelevant, then it would be a worse world than what we live in now.