0 Members and 29 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: ManxTom on July 11, 2024, 05:12:47 pmIssuing a second COFP seems daft and a recipe for confusion.That's exactly what I believe. I can only think that, since he first COFP was apparently cancelled, there was no mechanism for them the OP to pay the £100 penalty other than issuing a second offer.I'm not at all clear what the OP has done in response to that offer. If he has paid the penalty and submitted his licence he can suggest to the court that the matter should not be heard because s76(2) of the RTOA says so. If he has not paid the penalty and/or submitted his licence the proceedings should not have been brought until 28 days after the offer was made (Section 76(4)). In either event a SJPN should not have been raised and in the case of the latter, when the 28 days had elapsed it was too late to take proceedings anyway.The police seem to believe they can issue a COFP for administrative expediency and not be bound by the legislation which governs its issue.
Issuing a second COFP seems daft and a recipe for confusion.
The law likes to sort issues into pigeon holes, often with the use of a large sledgehammer to overcome the natural resistance to the particular hole.I have been in the audience when the High Court hearing a JR against refusal to state a case reconvened itself as a Divisional Court (without flinching) to determine the substantive issue.Either way, the prosecution is (on the face of it at least) unlawful, but the court would need to satisfy itself of the fact before deciding that it cannot continue to try the information. I have it in mind that technically it is an abuse of process - which used to require an application for stay to be lodged at least 14 days before the trial date, but no longer does, but the bottom line is that the issue needs to be communicated to the court and the other party in good time, and the court needs to determine whether it would be lawful to continue the proceedings.
Quote from: ManxTom on July 11, 2024, 05:12:47 pm@Sandy217 - in your OP you said that:"...I returned the letter the next day. I believe it was within 28 days (possibly sent on 27th day as I was intending to appeal / obtaining evidence re signage not sufficient).I received the form I completed with my licence details from hmcts to say it has been returned to me as it was not within the prescribed time and will receive a summons in due course..."But then on 11 June you post an update:"... Contacted the police who confirmed receipt of driving licence details…I will be receiving a new conditional offer which will allow me to return to the fixed penalty stage.Will also make payment of £100 as previous amount was refunded..."Are you saying that the police contradicted what they had previously told you and that in fact they admitted that they had received your details in time re the first COFP?If so I don't understand why they couldn't just have said pay us the £100 again that we mistakenly refunded to you. Issuing a second COFP seems daft and a recipe for confusion.Have you any record of this exchange with the police? Was it by email? Did you record a converstaion?Yes, the police contradicted what they said. There is an internal email to the prosecutions manager heading 'complaint case - urgent' which was forwarded to me, in error. The contents of the email discuss me paying £100.00 payment. No, not by email. I wanted to record the conversation, but thought it was wise not to do so, without their knowledge...
@Sandy217 - in your OP you said that:"...I returned the letter the next day. I believe it was within 28 days (possibly sent on 27th day as I was intending to appeal / obtaining evidence re signage not sufficient).I received the form I completed with my licence details from hmcts to say it has been returned to me as it was not within the prescribed time and will receive a summons in due course..."But then on 11 June you post an update:"... Contacted the police who confirmed receipt of driving licence details…I will be receiving a new conditional offer which will allow me to return to the fixed penalty stage.Will also make payment of £100 as previous amount was refunded..."Are you saying that the police contradicted what they had previously told you and that in fact they admitted that they had received your details in time re the first COFP?If so I don't understand why they couldn't just have said pay us the £100 again that we mistakenly refunded to you. Issuing a second COFP seems daft and a recipe for confusion.Have you any record of this exchange with the police? Was it by email? Did you record a converstaion?
I'm not regulated by the SRA but I thought it was perfectly legal to record any conversation that you were a party to. And that you didn't need to inform the other party. What is illegal is recording (or "bugging") a conversation you aren't a party to...
Quote from: Sandy217 on July 11, 2024, 09:43:51 pmQuote from: ManxTom on July 11, 2024, 05:12:47 pm@Sandy217 - in your OP you said that:"...I returned the letter the next day. I believe it was within 28 days (possibly sent on 27th day as I was intending to appeal / obtaining evidence re signage not sufficient).I received the form I completed with my licence details from hmcts to say it has been returned to me as it was not within the prescribed time and will receive a summons in due course..."But then on 11 June you post an update:"... Contacted the police who confirmed receipt of driving licence details…I will be receiving a new conditional offer which will allow me to return to the fixed penalty stage.Will also make payment of £100 as previous amount was refunded..."Are you saying that the police contradicted what they had previously told you and that in fact they admitted that they had received your details in time re the first COFP?If so I don't understand why they couldn't just have said pay us the £100 again that we mistakenly refunded to you. Issuing a second COFP seems daft and a recipe for confusion.Have you any record of this exchange with the police? Was it by email? Did you record a converstaion?Yes, the police contradicted what they said. There is an internal email to the prosecutions manager heading 'complaint case - urgent' which was forwarded to me, in error. The contents of the email discuss me paying £100.00 payment. No, not by email. I wanted to record the conversation, but thought it was wise not to do so, without their knowledge...I don't think you've mentioned that before? Does that internal email show that they actually did receive your details in time and that they cocked it all up?Do they know you have it? They might want to drop the prosecution out of embarrassment... Thanks - it simply states urgent complaint case and queries making payment. it was from Met Police, to the Fixed Penalty Team. I'm not regulated by the SRA but I thought it was perfectly legal to record any conversation that you were a party to. And that you didn't need to inform the other party. What is illegal is recording (or "bugging") a conversation you aren't a party to...
I see, my understanding was recording conversations, was permitted for personal use only. I guess I could have obtained permission from the court to release the recordings, I should have recorded the conversations in hindsight. Thanks.
Police's stance - 1st COFP was never cancelled (I was apparently informed in error by the fixed penalty office it was) and are not budging from this
...I think the Police (Prosecution Manager who I’m conversing with) is not happy I’ve tried to evade the 3 points.
