Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Completed Case Summaries _ Illegal Registration Plate

Posted by: creesteN Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 16:44
Post #1269560

Good Afternoon,

I have recently received a traffic offence report for the reason of offence code 400, VRM not conforming. Let me explain the situation first:



I then receive a telling off about my license plate as the other officer looks for more issues (finds none). I get told to get in the car and present my ID. When I question the officer as to why I'm getting the ticket, I get the response: "VRM not conforming". I ask him to be more specific, he says - I have no stamps with BS, postcodes, etc. I tell him to check again, he comes back telling me they're not visible. I tell him they don't have to be. He then adds onto that telling me the material is not reflective (it is, I have photos of the light bouncing straight into my camera), the letters are not smooth (they are pressed), and the position is not in the middle.

I have not argued about the letters as I wasn't sure. I checked the rules, I can't see anything prohibiting it. Position, I argued, mentioning the plates on Alfa Romeo. His reason was 'it's legal because it's standard, your car doesn't come like that'. I'm not satisfied and waiting for correspondence to come from police now.

What should my course of action be? I can send photographs if required.

Thanks!

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 16:48
Post #1269565

Let's see pictures of the plate.

Either it conforms to regulations, or it doesn't. What makes you think BS mark and maker's postcode does not have to be present?

What is the actual offence on the TOR? "VRM not conforming" is only part of an offence.

Some Alfa Romeos have their front plate mounted off centre, depends on the car.

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 16:50
Post #1269567

Indeed, it's fairly binary. Some info https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207546/V796.pdf

In terms of 'visbility' and placement I suspect it's off centre? There are particular rules about this too which very precise locations for visibility based on measurements and angles - I can dig it out if necessary.

It is likely the plate needs to be retroreflective - I'm not sure if you photo proves this?

But pictures will be worth a thousand words. (It's usually quite obvious if it complies or not)

Posted by: creesteN Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 16:57
Post #1269569

QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 16:48) *
Let's see pictures of the plate.

Either it conforms to regulations, or it doesn't. What makes you think BS mark and maker's postcode does not have to be present?


They have to be present. And they are. The policeman thought they weren't. His reason then was that they are not visible. I never seen a requirement to have BS marks and postcodes 'visible' on a plate.

For the sake of privacy I have blanked out one letter.








Posted by: Jlc Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:05
Post #1269573

I would say your key issue is whether the plate was sufficiently viewable from the OSF.

@NewJudge - you had a diagram for this exact purpose...?

Posted by: creesteN Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:07
Post #1269575

QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:05) *
I would say your key issue is whether the plate was sufficiently viewable from the OSF.

@NewJudge - you had a diagram for this exact purpose...?


If you could kindly instruct me, I'll head outside and check right now.

Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:12
Post #1269577

I can't see how that complies with the visibility requirements. It won't be visible towards the offside of the vehicle.

Posted by: NewJudge Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:19
Post #1269583

QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:05) *
I would say your key issue is whether the plate was sufficiently viewable from the OSF.

@NewJudge - you had a diagram for this exact purpose...?


Yes I did. I'm trying to find it biggrin.gif

There is a fairly prescriptive regulation defining the siting of vehicle number plates. I described it in an answer many moons ago. Essentially an imaginary rectangle is drawn in the front of the vehicle with one of its corners sited at the centre front of the car (so you have in effect a “diamond” shape in front of the car. The number plate must be readable from the entire rectangle. I’ll see if I can locate the question. It’s difficult to tell from your photographs but at a guess I would say the siting of your number plate does not comply.

Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:24
Post #1269586

Regulation 6 of The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001

QUOTE
This paragraph requires the plate to be fixed—

(a) vertically or, where that is not reasonably practicable, in a position as close to the vertical as is reasonably practicable,
(b) in such a position that in normal daylight the characters of the registration mark are easily distinguishable from every part of a relevant area having the diagonal length specified in paragraph (4).

(4) The diagonal length of the relevant area is—

(a) in the case of a mark having characters the width of which is at least 57 millimetres, 22 metres,
(b) in the case of a mark having characters the width of which is 50 millimetres, 21.5 metres,
(c) in the case of a mark having characters the width of which is 44 millimetres, 18 metres.


And Regulation 4

QUOTE
Interpretation of Part II

4. In this Part the following expressions shall have the following meanings—

“diagonal length”, in relation to a relevant area, means the length of a line drawn diagonally across the square enclosing the area (so that the extent of the relevant area is thereby delimited);

“relevant area”, in relation to a registration plate, means the area contained in a square described on the ground—
(a) in front of the vehicle in the case of a plate fixed on the front of the vehicle, and
(b) behind the vehicle in the case of a plate fixed on the rear of the vehicle,
where one corner of the square is immediately below the middle of the plate and the diagonal of the square from that corner is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle;

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:31
Post #1269591

So front plate not in it's original position.

As others have said, take to suitable location. Draw out imaginary bo according to posts above. See if plate visible from anywhere in box. Like others have alluded to, IMHO you'll fail on visibility from OS.


Posted by: Jlc Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:33
Post #1269592

QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:31) *
See if plate visible from everywhere in box.

It's a large box (more a diamond actually)

Posted by: creesteN Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:37
Post #1269593

QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:31) *
So front plate not in it's original position.

As others have said, take to suitable location. Draw out imaginary bo according to posts above. See if plate visible from anywhere in box. Like others have alluded to, IMHO you'll fail on visibility from OS.


Yes. It is not in its original position because that's what I intended (nowhere did I see that it has to be in original position). I'm heading out now to snap some photos.

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:45
Post #1269594

QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:37) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:31) *
So front plate not in it's original position.

As others have said, take to suitable location. Draw out imaginary bo according to posts above. See if plate visible from anywhere in box. Like others have alluded to, IMHO you'll fail on visibility from OS.


Yes. It is not in its original position because that's what I intended (nowhere did I see that it has to be in original position). I'm heading out now to snap some photos.


It doesn't have to be in it's original position. It just needs to pass the visibility test as outlined above.

Posted by: NewJudge Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:50
Post #1269596

Snapping a few photos won't really help. You need to measure out the "diamond" in front of your car, stand in the far left hand corner of it (when looking at your car) and see if you can read your number plate.

When you said that "nowhere did you see it has to be in its original position" did you come across the regulations explained above?

Posted by: creesteN Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:53
Post #1269597

Photo from roughly 22m (+/- 2) and 45 degrees off center of the car by eye. Zoomed by my phone camera so some quality is lost.


QUOTE (NewJudge @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:50) *
Snapping a few photos won't really help. You need to measure out the "diamond" in front of your car, stand in the far left hand corner of it (when looking at your car) and see if you can read your number plate.

When you said that "nowhere did you see it has to be in its original position" did you come across the regulations explained above?


Have you got a diagram? I'm having a hard time understanding what is the area that's relevant.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 18:01
Post #1269599

From the centreline of the plate (not the car) you head out at 45 degrees to the centreline of the car (offside only in your case) and see if you can still read the plate.

Additionally it must meet the relevant BS and have the details on it, it has the details but does it meet the requirements?

Posted by: creesteN Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 18:13
Post #1269603

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 18:01) *
From the centreline of the plate (not the car) you head out at 45 degrees to the centreline of the car (offside only in your case) and see if you can still read the plate.

Additionally it must meet the relevant BS and have the details on it, it has the details but does it meet the requirements?


Ahhh! If that's the case - I am certain that the plate is more than visible then. I have just roughly checked that (I'm sure neighbours had a laugh); and it's clearly visible from there. Phone died so I could not shoot it.

As for the requirements, I don't quite know. It's retroreflective, that's for sure. Sizing, font and spacing is standard.

Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 18:36
Post #1269607

QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 18:13) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 18:01) *
From the centreline of the plate (not the car) you head out at 45 degrees to the centreline of the car (offside only in your case) and see if you can still read the plate.

Additionally it must meet the relevant BS and have the details on it, it has the details but does it meet the requirements?


Ahhh! If that's the case - I am certain that the plate is more than visible then. I have just roughly checked that (I'm sure neighbours had a laugh); and it's clearly visible from there. Phone died so I could not shoot it.

As for the requirements, I don't quite know. It's retroreflective, that's for sure. Sizing, font and spacing is standard.

Even when you move to the offside?

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 18:38
Post #1269609

It's the 'easily distinguishable' part that perhaps is subjective. It may be borderline at the extremities.

At the moment, nothing has been formally issued in regards to how they want to proceed.

Posted by: creesteN Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 18:42
Post #1269610

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 18:36) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 18:13) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 18:01) *
From the centreline of the plate (not the car) you head out at 45 degrees to the centreline of the car (offside only in your case) and see if you can still read the plate.

Additionally it must meet the relevant BS and have the details on it, it has the details but does it meet the requirements?


Ahhh! If that's the case - I am certain that the plate is more than visible then. I have just roughly checked that (I'm sure neighbours had a laugh); and it's clearly visible from there. Phone died so I could not shoot it.

As for the requirements, I don't quite know. It's retroreflective, that's for sure. Sizing, font and spacing is standard.

Even when you move to the offside?


At next opportunity, I will try to deliver some exact photographs for you. Thanks for your help.

QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 18:38) *
It's the 'easily distinguishable' part that perhaps is subjective. It may be borderline at the extremities.

At the moment, nothing has been formally issued in regards to how they want to proceed.


Is it possible that they will throw this matter away without even contacting me?

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 18:44
Post #1269613

QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 18:42) *
Is it possible that they will throw this matter away without even contacting me?


Always possible, but very unlikely.

Posted by: KH_ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 19:13
Post #1269623

So from your reg plate walk 22m away (using the largest diagonal, depends on the size of your letters) from the centre of your plate as if you were driving forwards.
So not at a 90 degree angle to the plate, but 90 degrees forward as if the car was driving in a straight line forward.

I think that once you go to the farthest corner offside your plate may not be visible as its on an angle away from the offside but you'll need to measure it out to be sure.
I tried drawing a pic but gave up with my shaky arms making a mess of it wink.gif

Posted by: andy_foster Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 19:51
Post #1269637

The worst point that the plate needs to be readable from would be 11 metres forward of the centre of the plate and 11 metres to the right (from the direction of forward travel of the vehicle). This would probably be easiest to measure in a quiet supermarket car par (ideally one not regularly used for cruises), due to the abundance of straight lines and other straight lines perpendicular to them.

Posted by: bill w Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 19:56
Post #1269639

Using the Advanced Search options in the Google site search, recently pointed to by Fredd http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=112415&view=findpost&p=1269514, led me to http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=103826&st=20, see post 34 for NewJudge's diagram.

Posted by: KH_ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 20:03
Post #1269641

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 19:51) *
The worst point that the plate needs to be readable from would be 11 metres forward of the centre of the plate and 11 metres to the right (from the direction of forward travel of the vehicle).

I think worst case would be 15.5ish metres. The side of a square is equal to the diagonal divided by the square root of 2

Posted by: notmeatloaf Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 20:50
Post #1269660

QUOTE (bill w @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 19:56) *
NewJudge's diagram.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=103826&view=findpost&p=1144568


Posted by: creesteN Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 20:58
Post #1269662

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 20:50) *
QUOTE (bill w @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 19:56) *
NewJudge's diagram.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=103826&view=findpost&p=1144568



Provided I use this information and I find out it's visible - how do I prove it on paper? Do I just go to that exact point and take a photo, or do I have to photograph the measurements and everything else?

Posted by: notmeatloaf Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 21:24
Post #1269668

QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 20:58) *
Provided I use this information and I find out it's visible - how do I prove it on paper? Do I just go to that exact point and take a photo, or do I have to photograph the measurements and everything else?

Take it to an MOT garage, explain what you want checking, cross their palm with silver and ask them to document that your plate conforms with Regulation 6 of The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 because the characters are easily distinguishable from all parts of the area detailed in the legislation in daylight. Because this would seem to go beyond the requirements of a standard MOT test make sure you get both of those elements in the documentation.

Posted by: NewJudge Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 21:33
Post #1269671

QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 20:58) *
Provided I use this information and I find out it's visible - how do I prove it on paper? Do I just go to that exact point and take a photo, or do I have to photograph the measurements and everything else?


Thanks to those who found my diagram.

I think the answer to your question is that you don't have to prove your plate is readable as required, the prosecution has to prove that it is not. They will have to provide the evidence that it is not and from what you say no such evidence exists. But the idea of taking it to an MoT station as suggested will help if you find you do have a case to answer in this respect.

One other problem you may encounter is that I’m not too sure your plate conforms with the detailed requirements relating to font, layout etc. The regs are quite detailed and I don’t really have the time to wade through them. Others may know them by heart.

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 21:40
Post #1269673

There seems to be two issues here. 1) plate visibility 2) plate conformity.

OP. You never answered my question:

QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 16:48) *
What is the actual offence on the TOR? "VRM not conforming" is only part of an offence.

Posted by: Slick Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 21:48
Post #1269676

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 21:24) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 20:58) *
Provided I use this information and I find out it's visible - how do I prove it on paper? Do I just go to that exact point and take a photo, or do I have to photograph the measurements and everything else?

Take it to an MOT garage, explain what you want checking, cross their palm with silver and ask them to document that your plate conforms with Regulation 6 of The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 because the characters are easily distinguishable from all parts of the area detailed in the legislation in daylight. Because this would seem to go beyond the requirements of a standard MOT test make sure you get both of those elements in the documentation.



The MOT garage will tell you if your plate conforms to the regs........but wont tell you want you want to know as regards visibilty

Posted by: notmeatloaf Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 22:10
Post #1269686

QUOTE (Slick @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 21:48) *
The MOT garage will tell you if your plate conforms to the regs........but wont tell you want you want to know as regards visibilty

Only if the MOT garage is blind, illiterate or routinely turns down easy business.

You're taking it to an MOT garage because they are a business with standing and knowledge of how to test vehicles. Therefore their evidence carries greater weight in court than the OP taking DIY photographs.

You're not taking it there for an MOT test, you're taking it there to obtain an "expert" statement - which is why it's so important to ask them to include the points I detailed about.

Posted by: creesteN Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 22:11
Post #1269687

QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 21:40) *
There seems to be two issues here. 1) plate visibility 2) plate conformity.

OP. You never answered my question:

QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 16:48) *
What is the actual offence on the TOR? "VRM not conforming" is only part of an offence.



That's all it says. Offence: VRM not conforming. Offence code: 400.

I just measured and checked visibility. I was able to make out what the registration is from that location, it wasn't exactly clear, but it's visible.

What's the issue with plate conformity?

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 22:23
Post #1269694

QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 22:11) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 21:40) *
There seems to be two issues here. 1) plate visibility 2) plate conformity.

OP. You never answered my question:

QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 16:48) *
What is the actual offence on the TOR? "VRM not conforming" is only part of an offence.



That's all it says. Offence: VRM not conforming. Offence code: 400.

I just measured and checked visibility. I was able to make out what the registration is from that location, it wasn't exactly clear, but it's visible.

What's the issue with plate conformity?


The issue the cop had with conformity re. postcode, plate maker and BS logo. (I'm not saying he was correct in that respect)

IMHO, a MOT tester is no more qualified to do a visibility check than my next door neighbour.

You'll just have to see what, if anything, arrives in the post.

Posted by: andy_foster Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 22:24
Post #1269695

QUOTE (KH_ @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 20:03) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 19:51) *
The worst point that the plate needs to be readable from would be 11 metres forward of the centre of the plate and 11 metres to the right (from the direction of forward travel of the vehicle).

I think worst case would be 15.5ish metres. The side of a square is equal to the diagonal divided by the square root of 2


If you were to go 11 metres forward and 11 metres to the right, how far from your start point would you be? And how would you measure/judge 45 degrees from a line parallel to the sides of the vehicle?

Posted by: Churchmouse Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 22:27
Post #1269696

Pressed metal numberplates can definitely be conforming. There is nothing in the regs that prohibits them, per se. I have them on my own vehicles, not so much to "attract attention", but because the 1970's technology of the standard plastic garbage everyone else has disgracing their vehicles in this country has does not appeal to my obviously highly advanced sense of aesthetics... cool.gif

That said, the plates still need to conform to the letter dimensions and spacing requirements. I wasn't sure about two-row plates on automobiles, but they do not appear to be prohibited by either the regs quoted in this thread previously, or by the DVLA information leaflet INF104.

Most likely, the attitude test was not passed...

--Churchmouse

Posted by: creesteN Fri, 17 Mar 2017 - 00:11
Post #1269720

Would this fine, if accepted or guilty, be on my record (the online one, say) and visible to future insurers etc?

Posted by: peterguk Fri, 17 Mar 2017 - 00:19
Post #1269725

QUOTE (creesteN @ Fri, 17 Mar 2017 - 00:11) *
Would this fine, if accepted or guilty, be on my record (the online one, say) and visible to future insurers etc?


Why consider pleading guilty? If you are happy you are not guilty, then put the prosecution to proof of the offence.

If convicted, your insurance company would know about it as you'll have to declare it either at time of conviction or on renewal.

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 17 Mar 2017 - 00:32
Post #1269730

QUOTE (creesteN @ Fri, 17 Mar 2017 - 00:11) *
Would this fine, if accepted or guilty, be on my record (the online one, say) and visible to future insurers etc?

I don't know what online record you're thinking of but if an insurer asks you about convictions or fixed penalties accepted and doesn't exclude minor offences such as this you'd generally need to tell them.

Posted by: Logician Fri, 17 Mar 2017 - 01:13
Post #1269734

It will not be on your Driving Licence record at the DVLA, if that is what you are asking, the court will have a record but no one else. Nevertheless if an insurer asks you about convictions you will have to declare it of course.

Posted by: Mat_Shamus Fri, 17 Mar 2017 - 03:11
Post #1269738

My pressed plates are only single row and in the standard location on my car, but like yours they have laser etched markings at the bottom so not as bolt as printed markings, but still conform and still legal.

As mentioned it sounds like you failed the attitude test as i've never heard of anyone else getting in trouble for relocated front plates, especially if it's still on the front bumper. About 50% of Fabia vRS seem to have this mod these days but they seem to get left alone, even with stick on non legal plates....


Posted by: Slick Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 12:56
Post #1270026

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 22:10) *
QUOTE (Slick @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 21:48) *
The MOT garage will tell you if your plate conforms to the regs........but wont tell you want you want to know as regards visibilty

Only if the MOT garage is blind, illiterate or routinely turns down easy business.

You're taking it to an MOT garage because they are a business with standing and knowledge of how to test vehicles. Therefore their evidence carries greater weight in court than the OP taking DIY photographs.

You're not taking it there for an MOT test, you're taking it there to obtain an "expert" statement - which is why it's so important to ask them to include the points I detailed about.



I'll bow to your superior knowledge......after all I'm only a vehicle examiner

Posted by: creesteN Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 15:52
Post #1270103

QUOTE (Slick @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 12:56) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 22:10) *
QUOTE (Slick @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 21:48) *
The MOT garage will tell you if your plate conforms to the regs........but wont tell you want you want to know as regards visibilty

Only if the MOT garage is blind, illiterate or routinely turns down easy business.

You're taking it to an MOT garage because they are a business with standing and knowledge of how to test vehicles. Therefore their evidence carries greater weight in court than the OP taking DIY photographs.

You're not taking it there for an MOT test, you're taking it there to obtain an "expert" statement - which is why it's so important to ask them to include the points I detailed about.



I'll bow to your superior knowledge......after all I'm only a vehicle examiner


I'll be honest with you. I went to halfords and two MOT garages.

Halfords: Plate looks legal to me, not sure about position as we only make them; take it to a police station.
1st MOT: I don't know the details. Can't help you.
2nd MOT: Plate is probably not reflective (because it's not plastic), and letters are poking out so it must be illegal (is it? biggrin.gif).

As you can see, most MOT garages are clueless.

Posted by: NewJudge Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 18:16
Post #1270134

Why don't you try this as a "starter for ten":

Get a mate to help you measure 11 metres immediately in front of your number plate. Go to that point. Then get your mate to help you measure 11 metres immediately to the right (seen with your back to the car) of your starting point. Now from that point, see if you can read your plate.

Not entirely scientific (you may have difficulty making sure the second point is exactly at right angles to the first) but it will give you a fairly good idea whether your plate is readable as required. If it is, you can then decide whether to fight the matter in court (assuming it is the visibility that you are charged with and not the other compliance requirements). If the police did not carry out such a simple test when they decided your plate was non-compliant because of its visibilty, it is hard to see how they decided it did not comply.

Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 18:18
Post #1270135

I'm always amused at how threads such at this grow to such great length when the answers are quite simple (as above).

Posted by: peterguk Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 18:23
Post #1270136

QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 18:16) *
If the police did not carry out such a simple test when they decided your plate was non-compliant because of its visibilty, it is hard to see how they decided it did not comply.


Maybe the plate's position was so bad a measurement test was not necessary?

Posted by: bill w Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 21:08
Post #1270152

Unless I've missed it somewhere, no-one's defined exactly what was non-conforming about it, so everyone's having to guess; OP included.

It might just be the angle of the photo, but does the after market 2 line "square" style plate obscure the beam pattern of the (fog?) light in the front valance?
If so, would that make it non-conforming to whatever "offence code 400" is??

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SQUARE-11x8-OBLONG-PRESSED-METAL-EMBOSSED-CAR-4x4-REG-NUMBER-PLATES-100-Legal-/291792042050 certainly claims that the plates are UK legal, and they also claim to be an approved supplier, so taking those claims at face value, it only leaves positioning.
Always assuming that the text size is correct for a car,rather than being a motorcycle plate of course.

Posted by: peterguk Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 21:17
Post #1270153

QUOTE (bill w @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 21:08) *
Unless I've missed it somewhere, no-one's defined exactly what was non-conforming about it, so everyone's having to guess; OP included.


From what OP has told us, the plate can not be read from everywhere within a defined area. i.e. the OSF area of the vehicle.

I have queried the meaningless "VRM not conforming" in the TOR in an earlier post. OP does not appear to have queried it with the authorities.

Posted by: GM71 Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 23:32
Post #1270171

Using the trigonometry calculation area provided by NewJudge, but with the triangle dimensions divided by 4 to get everything in the picture (all angles still work out exactly the same), this is an exact 1:50 scale diagram showing the location of the plate on the Leon along with the required O/S viewing angle. Based on the given viewing area calculations, the viewing angle of the plate does look to be right on the limit but I reckon all the numbers could just about still all be seen from that required angle.


Posted by: peterguk Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 23:43
Post #1270174

QUOTE (GM71 @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 23:32) *
I reckon all the numbers could just about still all be seen from that required angle.


So, so close that might just be visible, but might not be visible. Not forgetting the odd 20m difference in distance between drawings...

We can sit pontificating forever. OP needs to carry out test as previously advised. Anything else is just speculation.

Posted by: creesteN Sun, 19 Mar 2017 - 03:40
Post #1270182

To put an end to the speculations, I will check exactly how the position of my registration affects visibility tomorrow. However, I would like to know first:



Posted by: Jlc Sun, 19 Mar 2017 - 09:36
Post #1270203

You will have to wait and see what they issue. (It will have to state the particular part of the relevant legislation)

The photographic evidence is fine but obviously it depends on what they are progressing.

Yes, the offence can occur in the car park.

Personally, I don't they are proceeding on the exact visibility - my take is that they think the plate is deficient from BS AU 145d. (Possibly the visibility of the required info) But it doesn't appear to have been violated - but I haven't checked all the requirements.

The reflectivity has to retroreflective, that is the light is reflected to where it came from.

Posted by: southpaw82 Sun, 19 Mar 2017 - 12:05
Post #1270247

QUOTE (creesteN @ Sun, 19 Mar 2017 - 03:40) *
[*]I just checked GMP's documents. Offence code 400 returns "REGISTRATION MARK NOT CONFORMING". What does this mean?


That the number plate doesn't comply with the rules.

QUOTE
[*]If the ticket only includes one offence, can I be prosecuted for another? For example, ticket states my registration has no british standards mark. Can I be fined for the position?


Yes. You've not got a ticket yet.

QUOTE
[*]If the police issuing the ticket didn't check visibility using the measurements above, how can they prove to me that I'm violating it?


They don't have to prove it to you, just a court. If they didn't do the measurements it's unlikely they're contemplating that offence.

QUOTE
[*]Are officers allowed to take evidence in the form of photographs using their private iPhones


Yes.

QUOTE
or do they have to use specific equipment provided?


No.

QUOTE
[*]Can I be fined for this offence if it took place in a council car park?


Yes


Posted by: Churchmouse Sun, 19 Mar 2017 - 12:26
Post #1270254

QUOTE (Jlc @ Sun, 19 Mar 2017 - 09:36) *
Personally, I don't they are proceeding on the exact visibility - my take is that they think the plate is deficient from BS AU 145d. (Possibly the visibility of the required info) But it doesn't appear to have been violated - but I haven't checked all the requirements.

The reflectivity has to retroreflective, that is the light is reflected to where it came from.

These types of generally plates use a retroreflective adhesive film, just like the plastic plates do, except that it is applied to the front of the aluminium plate rather than to the back of the plastic one. Not surprisingly, it reflects light in exactly the same way.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: andy_foster Sun, 19 Mar 2017 - 14:23
Post #1270282

QUOTE (creesteN @ Sun, 19 Mar 2017 - 03:40) *
[*]Can I be fined for this offence if it took place in a council car park?


The legislation does not stipulate where the offence is committed. Many motoring offences stipulate either a road a road or other public place.

Taken literally, it would be an offence to remove the front bumper for repairs in a locked private garage, which is clearly absurd. I would argue that the legislation must be read restrictively to apply only to vehicles being used on public roads.

Posted by: southpaw82 Sun, 19 Mar 2017 - 16:13
Post #1270301

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 19 Mar 2017 - 14:23) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Sun, 19 Mar 2017 - 03:40) *
[*]Can I be fined for this offence if it took place in a council car park?


The legislation does not stipulate where the offence is committed. Many motoring offences stipulate either a road a road or other public place.

Taken literally, it would be an offence to remove the front bumper for repairs in a locked private garage, which is clearly absurd. I would argue that the legislation must be read restrictively to apply only to vehicles being used on public roads.

Maybe. A purposive interpretation would suggest that it's desirous to be able to identify vehicles on a road or public place, so perhaps somewhat wider than just roads. Private property I agree.

Posted by: baroudeur Sun, 19 Mar 2017 - 17:40
Post #1270334

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 23:27) *
Pressed metal numberplates can definitely be conforming. There is nothing in the regs that prohibits them, per se.

It's true nothing the regs prohibits tham but there are many reports of users being fined for using them and others who have not as you have commented on before and specifically in 2014 when you bought your pressed metal plates. You also referred to possible new standard BS AU 145e which might have included pressed metal plates but still hasn't been approved. If pressed plates are legal currently why are the major suppliers of plates - Hills - Jepsons - Bestplates etc not selling them? perhaps it's because BS AU145d states "The plate must be made of retroreflecting material which, as regards its construction, colour and other qualities, complies with the requirements of BS AU145d— Do pressed metal plates conform to 'construction and other qualities'? I can't afford £100+ to find out and neither has anyone else it seems..

I wasn't sure about two-row plates on automobiles, but they do not appear to be prohibited by either the regs quoted in this thread previously, or by the DVLA information leaflet INF104.

arrangement of characters http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/561/pdfs/uksi_20010561_en.pdf


Posted by: roythebus Mon, 20 Mar 2017 - 11:24
Post #1270504

The number plate does not comply with the layout and spacing. the top row of letters/numerals should be positioned centrally, not set to the right.

See diagram 3b in the link above. But let the court/cps provide that evidence.

Posted by: bm1957 Mon, 20 Mar 2017 - 11:50
Post #1270525

QUOTE (roythebus @ Mon, 20 Mar 2017 - 11:24) *
The number plate does not comply with the layout and spacing. the top row of letters/numerals should be positioned centrally, not set to the right.

See diagram 3b in the link above. But let the court/cps provide that evidence.

I think there's a 'whited out' letter, top left of the plate. So no issue there

Posted by: io1901 Mon, 20 Mar 2017 - 12:28
Post #1270550

Isn't the BS AU 145d(a) standard required to understand the regulations? From the info that I've been able to find online (not the standard itself) implies that the registration plate needs to be manufactured from "crash resistant acrylic". https://www.bnma.org/legislation.html for instance.




Posted by: creesteN Mon, 20 Mar 2017 - 14:25
Post #1270601

QUOTE (roythebus @ Mon, 20 Mar 2017 - 11:24) *
The number plate does not comply with the layout and spacing. the top row of letters/numerals should be positioned centrally, not set to the right.

See diagram 3b in the link above. But let the court/cps provide that evidence.


I have blanked out one letter for privacy.

Posted by: baroudeur Mon, 20 Mar 2017 - 17:30
Post #1270652

QUOTE (roythebus @ Mon, 20 Mar 2017 - 12:24) *
The number plate does not comply with the layout and spacing. the top row of letters/numerals should be positioned centrally, not set to the right.

See diagram 3b in the link above. But let the court/cps provide that evidence.



In the OP's photo of the plate it shows the BS AU145d mark and the suppliers name and postcode but not centrally as required and it does not show the plate manufacturer or component supplier's name adjacent to the BS mark as shown in this http://www.jepsonandco.com/pdf/Number%20Plate%20Legislation.pdf

Interestingly, a number of reputable number plate suppliers list square number plates but only in yellow i.e. rear plates. Further, none of the major brand plate manufacturers list pressed aluminium plates other than black/white/silver for pre 1971 registered cars.

If only the UK followed other countries where plates are issued by the state in the official format. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: creesteN Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 13:13
Post #1275335

The non endorsable penalty of 100 gbp has arrived today. It says I have 28 days to comply with the conditions.

"You were the driver / passenger of motor vehicle ... At the time of an alleged offence, Drive a vehicle when the registration mark fails to conform with regulations contrary to Contrary to section 59(1) of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 at...."

What is my next course of action?

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 13:25
Post #1275337

If you're guilty pay it. If not, don't. If you don't expect to end up in court defending yourself.

Posted by: Logician Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 14:13
Post #1275350

Be aware that if you decide to defend the matter in court and lose, it will not simply be a matter of £100, but a fine related to your income, plus a surcharge plus prosecution costs, which will be very much more. You need to be very sure of your ground to take this to court.

Posted by: creesteN Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 14:52
Post #1275361

That's where you guys are very helpful to me. On the basis of all the information I've given, have I got a good ground of winning this? To be honest I don't even know what the reason for the ticket is.

Posted by: Jlc Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 15:37
Post #1275368

QUOTE (creesteN @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 15:52) *
To be honest I don't even know what the reason for the ticket is.

This is why it's worth making further enquiries - they may not be receptive to this though. From what we do know it appears to be the BS 145d compliance (visibility of postcode etc., pressed letters, reflective) and the overall positioning (not in the middle).

If you can show compliance and that the plate is readable within the bounds discussed earlier then you appear to have a case.

I presume you haven't changed the plate or the positioning?

Posted by: baroudeur Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 16:46
Post #1275381

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 16:37) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 15:52) *
To be honest I don't even know what the reason for the ticket is.

This is why it's worth making further enquiries - they may not be receptive to this though. From what we do know it appears to be the BS 145d compliance (visibility of postcode etc., pressed letters, reflective) and the overall positioning (not in the middle).

If you can show compliance and that the plate is readable within the bounds discussed earlier then you appear to have a case.

I presume you haven't changed the plate or the positioning?


If it is not known which specific item(s) triggered the contravention how can a defence be prepared? There are two separate bits of legislation involved with numbers plates, the BS AU145d requirements and Regulation 6 of The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.

Do pressed aluminium plates conform to BS AU145d? Perhaps not as the reflectivity requirement relates, specifically, to acrylic plates the specification of which was changed with the 2001 regulations.

Posted by: peterguk Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 17:13
Post #1275387

QUOTE (baroudeur @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 17:46) *
Do pressed aluminium plates conform to BS AU145d?


They can do. Depends on the manufacturer.

Posted by: bill w Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 20:24
Post #1275427

QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 17:13) *
QUOTE (baroudeur @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 17:46) *
Do pressed aluminium plates conform to BS AU145d?


They can do. Depends on the manufacturer.


Whilst I appreciate that anyone can claim anything, and it doesn't make it true, http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=112479&view=findpost&p=1270152 points to the vendor, who claims
"DVLA APPROVED registered number plate suppliers (RNPS-51923)"
"White & Yellow plates will be made using reflective material and is BS AU 145d Standard"

They also require the correct documentation to complete the order.

I accept that this doesn't prove that they are fully legal plates, but if they are not, how on earth is the average purchaser supposed to know?

Obviously the vendor has no control over where, or how they are mounted.

I do have more than a passing interest, as I need a new plate for one of the bikes, and would prefer a legit metal one.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 21:09
Post #1275436

QUOTE (bill w @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 21:24) *
I accept that this doesn't prove that they are fully legal plates, but if they are not, how on earth is the average purchaser supposed to know?

You purchase from a reputable supplier. Just the same with any other maintenance on your car. You, the motorist, are responsible for ensuring your car is safe and legal and if you delegate aspects of that it should be to a competent person.


Posted by: bill w Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 21:36
Post #1275445

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 22:09) *
QUOTE (bill w @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 21:24) *
I accept that this doesn't prove that they are fully legal plates, but if they are not, how on earth is the average purchaser supposed to know?

You purchase from a reputable supplier. Just the same with any other maintenance on your car. You, the motorist, are responsible for ensuring your car is safe and legal and if you delegate aspects of that it should be to a competent person.


And what better way than checking the supplier on https://www.gov.uk/number-plate-supplier
Try entering E11 1HT off the OP's numberplate, and all seems legit.

Results near E11 1HT:
EJ Parts & Accessories Ltd,
Forest House Business Centre 8 Gainsborough Road, London,
E11 1HT

Posted by: creesteN Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 22:39
Post #1275467

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 16:37) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 15:52) *
To be honest I don't even know what the reason for the ticket is.

This is why it's worth making further enquiries - they may not be receptive to this though. From what we do know it appears to be the BS 145d compliance (visibility of postcode etc., pressed letters, reflective) and the overall positioning (not in the middle).

If you can show compliance and that the plate is readable within the bounds discussed earlier then you appear to have a case.

I presume you haven't changed the plate or the positioning?


No no. I haven't made any changes to the plate or the positioning. I'll be making a letter of appeal to Greater Manchester Police to explain why I feel this plate doesn't violate any rules to see where that takes me.

Posted by: Logician Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 23:26
Post #1275476

QUOTE (baroudeur @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 17:46) *
If it is not known which specific item(s) triggered the contravention how can a defence be prepared? There are two separate bits of legislation involved with numbers plates, the BS AU145d requirements and Regulation 6 of The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.


As with speeding, evidence is not provided with the offer of a fixed penalty, only if the case goes to court. But if the OP makes an enquiry to GMP they might be willing to explain what aspect of the plate caused them concern.

QUOTE
No no. I haven't made any changes to the plate or the positioning. I'll be making a letter of appeal to Greater Manchester Police to explain why I feel this plate doesn't violate any rules to see where that takes me.


You cannot appeal a fixed penalty but you can certainly ask what they say is wrong with it.


Posted by: creesteN Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 23:38
Post #1275477

QUOTE (Logician @ Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 00:26) *
QUOTE (baroudeur @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 17:46) *
If it is not known which specific item(s) triggered the contravention how can a defence be prepared? There are two separate bits of legislation involved with numbers plates, the BS AU145d requirements and Regulation 6 of The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.


As with speeding, evidence is not provided with the offer of a fixed penalty, only if the case goes to court. But if the OP makes an enquiry to GMP they might be willing to explain what aspect of the plate caused them concern.

QUOTE
No no. I haven't made any changes to the plate or the positioning. I'll be making a letter of appeal to Greater Manchester Police to explain why I feel this plate doesn't violate any rules to see where that takes me.


You cannot appeal a fixed penalty but you can certainly ask what they say is wrong with it.


A friend of mine was fined for almost the same offence, followed with a letter to GMP and they have cancelled the fine without going to court?

Can I get everyone's opinions if provided by the fact that:

A. I have all relevant stamps on the registration.
B. It is reflective and retroreflective (I have photos where it bounces back at me from an angle).
C. The supplier stated it's legal in an ebay conversation.
D. The positioning has not been measured (ie. visibility area checked) by the police when stopped.
E. I did some rough measurements and it seems just about ok (once again, Police have no evidence that it isn't).
F. Letters are pressed, but nowhere in the regulations does it say they can't be.

Do I stand a good ground of winning this in court, or should I just pay it?

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 04:55
Post #1275483

With a prepared defence yes, there is a statement above that the makers name must be central, but I can't find that requirement.

GMP cannot 'cancel the fine' as its not yet one, nor strictly can they cancel a fixed penalty once offered, what they can do is confirm no further action will be taken if the fixed penalty isn't paid, I know that is semantics to a large extent but its worth understanding them in your situation.

Posted by: Gan Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 07:35
Post #1275499

Your original post dated 16 March said that you had recently received the penalty

How recently because you're getting close to the deadline ?

My understanding is that if you don't positively reject the Fixed Penalty, you won't be defending it in court
After 28 days it will be recorded as a fine and increased by 50%


Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 08:51
Post #1275521

QUOTE (Gan @ Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 08:35) *
My understanding is that if you don't positively reject the Fixed Penalty, you won't be defending it in court
After 28 days it will be recorded as a fine and increased by 50%

If you read the thread the OP doesn't appear to have a "fixed penalty notice" but a "conditional offer of a fixed penalty" which does not carry the same implications.

Posted by: Gan Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 09:04
Post #1275522

Thanks

I read that he asked why he was getting the ticket but not the earlier part about receiving the traffic report

Posted by: io1901 Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 09:09
Post #1275523

QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 18:13) *
QUOTE (baroudeur @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 17:46) *
Do pressed aluminium plates conform to BS AU145d?

They can do. Depends on the manufacturer.


How can they if BS AU145d states they have to be made from "crash resistant acrylic"? It seems that pressed plates can be be bought from "approved supplies" but do the pressed plates themselves comply with BS AU145d.

Posted by: samthecat Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 09:24
Post #1275530

QUOTE (io1901 @ Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 10:09) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 18:13) *
QUOTE (baroudeur @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 17:46) *
Do pressed aluminium plates conform to BS AU145d?

They can do. Depends on the manufacturer.


How can they if BS AU145d states they have to be made from "crash resistant acrylic"? It seems that pressed plates can be be bought from "approved supplies" but do the pressed plates themselves comply with BS AU145d.


Where does it say that?

The site you linked to earlier in the thread also has this page: https://www.bnma.org/faqs.html which says metal plates can be OK.

Posted by: mickR Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 09:30
Post #1275532

QUOTE (io1901 @ Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 10:09) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 18:13) *
QUOTE (baroudeur @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 17:46) *
Do pressed aluminium plates conform to BS AU145d?

They can do. Depends on the manufacturer.


How can they if BS AU145d states they have to be made from "crash resistant acrylic"? It seems that pressed plates can be be bought from "approved supplies" but do the pressed plates themselves comply with BS AU145d.


Maybe ask the supplier as theybsay they are.

Posted by: bill w Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 09:34
Post #1275533

A slightly off the wall thought, and I don't know how useful it would be;

Could the OP further engage with the supplier, who it seems is DVLA approved, as to why they believe the plates they supplied do fall within the boundaries of the legislation.

They could potentially be prosecuted for supplying non-conforming plates, so it might just focus their minds somewhat http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/3/section/28.

This is all still speculation of course, as no-one save the police know exactly what the alleged issue is with the plates.

Re. the previous post about "crash resistant acrylic", I read the reference to that as; since the new acrylic is slightly more absorbent of light, then the backing material needed to have its reflectivity increased, rather than saying that all new plates had to be made of "crash resistant acrylic". Then again I've no idea what may have been tested in court.

p.s., looks like mickR was a quicker typist.

Posted by: baroudeur Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 13:53
Post #1275598

Plates are subject to http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/561/schedule/2/made where the only reference to pressed plates, per se, appears to in Part 3 - B relating to pre- 1973 vehicles. Whether the reflectivity requirements, which are complex and relate to acrylic material overlaying a reflective beckground, can be met with a reflective sheet stuck onto a metal backing is unclear.

A motoring "legal" advice website states...

"However, be careful, as some plate makers claim to be 100% legal when producing "road legal pressed plates", but they are not actually retroflective as it costs a fair bit to submit plates to BSI testing. There is only a handful of pressed plate manufacturers in the UK that have successfully submitted their number plates to BSI testing – and passed".

Unfortunately, it doesn't name those manufacturers.

There are suppliers who claim their pressed plates, using German supplied material, meet BS AU 145d and, whilst an equivalent specification to the BS standard is permitted,the regulations appear to require that the plate should show the equivalent standard not the BS standard.

None of the major plate manufacturers offer pressed plates although that may be a commercial decision rather than a legal one.

Anyone got a copy of the £85 BS AU 145d?

Posted by: localdriver Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 14:20
Post #1275606

From DVLA Bulletin 21/11
'Nothing in BS AU 145d or the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 that specifically excludes raised lettering or metal plates'.


Posted by: bill w Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 16:10
Post #1275632

QUOTE (baroudeur @ Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 14:53) *
Plates are subject to http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/561/schedule/2/made where the only reference to pressed plates, per se, appears to in Part 3 - B relating to pre- 1973 vehicles. Whether the reflectivity requirements, which are complex and relate to acrylic material overlaying a reflective beckground, can be met with a reflective sheet stuck onto a metal backing is unclear.

A motoring "legal" advice website states...

"However, be careful, as some plate makers claim to be 100% legal when producing "road legal pressed plates", but they are not actually retroflective as it costs a fair bit to submit plates to BSI testing. There is only a handful of pressed plate manufacturers in the UK that have successfully submitted their number plates to BSI testing – and passed".

Unfortunately, it doesn't name those manufacturers.

There are suppliers who claim their pressed plates, using German supplied material, meet BS AU 145d and, whilst an equivalent specification to the BS standard is permitted,the regulations appear to require that the plate should show the equivalent standard not the BS standard.

None of the major plate manufacturers offer pressed plates although that may be a commercial decision rather than a legal one.

Anyone got a copy of the £85 BS AU 145d?


I picked up from http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=90123&st=0, that the relevant BS is available on the net if you search for "bs_au_145d.pdf"
I'll not link to it myself as at least one version seems to be an uncontrolled copy, probably hosted "unofficially"


Posted by: creesteN Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 20:23
Post #1275692

All this aside, how can they prove to me that the plate is made of the wrong material in court?

Posted by: 666 Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 20:49
Post #1275699

QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 21:23) *
All this aside, how can they prove to me that the plate is made of the wrong material in court?


It's not you they have to convince!

Posted by: creesteN Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 21:00
Post #1275702

QUOTE (666 @ Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 21:49) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 21:23) *
All this aside, how can they prove to me that the plate is made of the wrong material in court?


It's not you they have to convince!


Were missing the point here. Im contemplating if I'm guilty and if this is worth going to court over or not and I'm not finding out much right now sad.gif

Posted by: Logician Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 23:07
Post #1275732

QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 22:00) *
QUOTE (666 @ Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 21:49) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 21:23) *
All this aside, how can they prove to me that the plate is made of the wrong material in court?
It's not you they have to convince!
Were missing the point here. Im contemplating if I'm guilty and if this is worth going to court over or not and I'm not finding out much right now sad.gif


The problem is that we do not know what they consider is wrong with the plate, even whether it is the plate itself or its position. Until we know that we cannot know how strong your defence might be. Therefore as suggested above, the first step is a polite enquiry about that.


Posted by: creesteN Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 23:39
Post #1275736

QUOTE (Logician @ Fri, 7 Apr 2017 - 00:07) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 22:00) *
QUOTE (666 @ Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 21:49) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 6 Apr 2017 - 21:23) *
All this aside, how can they prove to me that the plate is made of the wrong material in court?
It's not you they have to convince!
Were missing the point here. Im contemplating if I'm guilty and if this is worth going to court over or not and I'm not finding out much right now sad.gif


The problem is that we do not know what they consider is wrong with the plate, even whether it is the plate itself or its position. Until we know that we cannot know how strong your defence might be. Therefore as suggested above, the first step is a polite enquiry about that.


How should I do so?

Posted by: Logician Fri, 7 Apr 2017 - 00:58
Post #1275741

You write back to the address given, saying something along the lines of "Dear Sirs, I have received a Traffic Offence Report relating to "offence code 400, VRM not conforming" At the time the officer talked about a number of aspects of my number plates, but I was left confused as to what exactly he objected to. I should be most grateful if you would let me the precise feature to which objection is taken, amongst other reasons so that I can examine them for myself and if necessaqry take up the matter with the supplier of the number plates, who sold them to me on the basis that they were road legal ."

Posted by: creesteN Fri, 7 Apr 2017 - 21:14
Post #1275940

I've messaged the seller on ebay as to why he believes the plates follow the legislation. This is his response, quoted:

QUOTE
Because they have legal lettering, colour and size.


The enquiry to the central ticket office will be posted tomorrow morning so I will keep you all updated.

As we wait, can someone answer my question that is really bothering me; In court, am I able to lose over the positioning of the plate even though the policeman has not measured the relevant visible area and I claim I have?

Posted by: andy_foster Fri, 7 Apr 2017 - 21:18
Post #1275944

If sufficient evidence is adduced to enable the court to be certain beyond any reasonable doubt.

Posted by: IanJohnsonWS14 Sat, 8 Apr 2017 - 07:43
Post #1275979

Don't get hung up I one issue until you know what they are prosecuting over.

I would suggest thAt you read the standard, from my quick scan there are a couple of non-compliance. e.g the name of maker should be in a non-reflective area.

If you can't find it on line as suggested above (as I did) your local library will have it.

Posted by: Churchmouse Sat, 8 Apr 2017 - 08:52
Post #1275984

QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Sat, 8 Apr 2017 - 08:43) *
Don't get hung up I one issue until you know what they are prosecuting over.

I would suggest thAt you read the standard, from my quick scan there are a couple of non-compliance. e.g the name of maker should be in a non-reflective area.

Where did you get that?

Section 5.1© says the mandatory markings "can be in any colour as long as it is not retroreflective". In any case, nearly all conventional plastic numberplates also have their markings in "reflective areas"...

By the way, Section 1 also includes this: "NOTE. Retroreflecting number plates may be manufactured from any material which performs satisfactorily in service, providing the requirements of this standard are met."

Based on the diagram, although the standard seems to suggest that the "name and location of the supplying outlet" should be centred, it doesn't actually say "centred" in the standard and the illustrative diagram also reveals that there is a 178mm width allowed for that information (which, on a square-ish numberplate could look more out of place than on a more rectangular one). "Failure to centre properly" would be a rather de minimus non-compliance even if true.

Finally, there could be many reasons why the number of pressed metal numberplate suppliers is not as great as the number who supply plastic ones. Obviously, the tooling necessary to make metal plates is completely different than what every Halfords branch and every other numberplate supplier already has--so as long as the British public keep buying cheap plastic tat to affix upon their precious motors, why would suppliers bother to invest in the new tooling?

(As for motorists relying upon "reputable" suppliers to ensure compliance with the rules and regs, a while back when an earlier number-spacing thread was raging I managed to snap pictures of two different (plastic) plates with obviously incorrect spacing: both had been supplied by Halfords!)

--Churchmouse

Posted by: creesteN Sat, 8 Apr 2017 - 16:01
Post #1276030

QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Sat, 8 Apr 2017 - 08:43) *
Don't get hung up I one issue until you know what they are prosecuting over.

I would suggest thAt you read the standard, from my quick scan there are a couple of non-compliance. e.g the name of maker should be in a non-reflective area.

If you can't find it on line as suggested above (as I did) your local library will have it.


I don't see any non-compliance in the plate.

Posted by: IanJohnsonWS14 Mon, 10 Apr 2017 - 07:36
Post #1276266

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 8 Apr 2017 - 08:52) *
QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Sat, 8 Apr 2017 - 08:43) *
Don't get hung up I one issue until you know what they are prosecuting over.

I would suggest thAt you read the standard, from my quick scan there are a couple of non-compliance. e.g the name of maker should be in a non-reflective area.

Where did you get that?

Section 5.1© says the mandatory markings "can be in any colour as long as it is not retroreflective". In any case, nearly all conventional plastic numberplates also have their markings in "reflective areas"...

--Churchmouse


Look at the OPs pictures, the manufacturers name is clearly stamped in the reflective area.

On my plates this information is in the surround which is not reflective.

Posted by: Fredd Mon, 10 Apr 2017 - 07:47
Post #1276273

QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Mon, 10 Apr 2017 - 08:36) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 8 Apr 2017 - 08:52) *
QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Sat, 8 Apr 2017 - 08:43) *
Don't get hung up I one issue until you know what they are prosecuting over.

I would suggest thAt you read the standard, from my quick scan there are a couple of non-compliance. e.g the name of maker should be in a non-reflective area.

Where did you get that?

Section 5.1© says the mandatory markings "can be in any colour as long as it is not retroreflective". In any case, nearly all conventional plastic numberplates also have their markings in "reflective areas"...

--Churchmouse


Look at the OPs pictures, the manufacturers name is clearly stamped in the reflective area.

On my plates this information is in the surround which is not reflective.

You're not making the distinction between the markings (the text) and the background. The yellow/white background must be retro-reflective, the text (including the VRM) must not be retro-reflective.

Posted by: baroudeur Mon, 10 Apr 2017 - 13:55
Post #1276380

This is the link referred to in post 86 https://www.bikechatforums.com/files/bs_au_145d.pdf which I have opened without problem.
At last a copy of the standard and from this it appears that pressed metal plates are compliant providing they meet all the requirements.

There is a note........

Marking BS AU 145d on or in relation to a product represents a manufacturer's declaration of conformity, i.e. a claim by or on behalf
of the manufacturer that the product meets the requirements of the standard. The accuracy of the claim is solely the claimant's
responsibility.

Posted by: creesteN Mon, 10 Apr 2017 - 21:34
Post #1276477

Central Ticket Office in Hyde has ignored and not responded to both of my enquiries by email.

Posted by: squaredeal Tue, 11 Apr 2017 - 04:48
Post #1276498

QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 10 Apr 2017 - 21:34) *
Central Ticket Office in Hyde has ignored and not responded to both of my enquiries by email.

So follow up with a phone call?

Posted by: samthecat Tue, 11 Apr 2017 - 09:32
Post #1276533

QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 10 Apr 2017 - 22:34) *
Central Ticket Office in Hyde has ignored and not responded to both of my enquiries by email.


Do you have the collar number of the issuing officer?

I would suggest calling/ emailing them directly would be better than the CTO.

Posted by: creesteN Tue, 11 Apr 2017 - 12:50
Post #1276587

QUOTE (samthecat @ Tue, 11 Apr 2017 - 10:32) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 10 Apr 2017 - 22:34) *
Central Ticket Office in Hyde has ignored and not responded to both of my enquiries by email.


Do you have the collar number of the issuing officer?

I would suggest calling/ emailing them directly would be better than the CTO.


I went into a police station the day after of the offence to see the reason for the traffic offence report. The lady said she contacted the officer to get him to call me. He never did smile.gif

Posted by: creesteN Wed, 12 Apr 2017 - 09:33
Post #1276768

Update:

QUOTE
Dear Sir



I acknowledge receipt of your email.



I will contact the issuing officer to make further enquiries regarding your number plate and on receipt of a response I will

Correspond with you again.



Any time limits will be taken into consideration.

Posted by: Churchmouse Mon, 17 Apr 2017 - 22:06
Post #1278220

QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Mon, 10 Apr 2017 - 08:36) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 8 Apr 2017 - 08:52) *
QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Sat, 8 Apr 2017 - 08:43) *
Don't get hung up I one issue until you know what they are prosecuting over.

I would suggest thAt you read the standard, from my quick scan there are a couple of non-compliance. e.g the name of maker should be in a non-reflective area.

Where did you get that?

Section 5.1© says the mandatory markings "can be in any colour as long as it is not retroreflective". In any case, nearly all conventional plastic numberplates also have their markings in "reflective areas"...

--Churchmouse


Look at the OPs pictures, the manufacturers name is clearly stamped in the reflective area.

On my plates this information is in the surround which is not reflective.

As Fredd has more timely observed, you have apparently misinterpreted the wording of the standard. "Should be in a non-reflective area" is not an accurate paraphrasing of Section 5.1( c ). I had asked where you had obtained your information because I was wondering if there was another standard or regulation in play. Seems not.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: creesteN Mon, 24 Apr 2017 - 21:55
Post #1280166

Still no response from the ticket office. They are waiting for the officer to give an explanation. He seemed to ignore my first request via the police station and now it seems as if he's (perhaps?) not responding to the ticket office.

Does this line in the email:

QUOTE
Any time limits will be taken into consideration.


Give me the ability to go beyond the 28 days which end sometime mid-week? If no, can I appeal via e-mail or is post the only option?

Posted by: creesteN Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 08:56
Post #1280230

QUOTE
I have received a response from the issuing officer who states that the VRM plate was non-standard and the letters were raised on the VRM Plate.

Posted by: Unzippy Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 09:02
Post #1280232

Raised letters - so the officer is saying 3D is not allowed?

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 09:09
Post #1280237

QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 24 Apr 2017 - 22:55) *
Give me the ability to go beyond the 28 days which end sometime mid-week? If no, can I appeal via e-mail or is post the only option?

The conditional offer period 'suspends' prosecution for that period. If you do not comply (fully) within that period then that offer expires.

Whether they will prosecute or not is up to them. (But assume they will)

QUOTE (Unzippy @ Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 10:02) *
Raised letters - so the officer is saying 3D is not allowed?

Pressed plates/raised letters aren't specifically prohibited.

Posted by: creesteN Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 09:11
Post #1280239

I would like to appeal this. They gave me 14 days to respond from today to extend my offer. What do you lot recommend?

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 09:27
Post #1280243

There's no formal 'appeal' process.

But as contact appears to be difficult with them then engaging will be a challenge. It's not certain if they'll actually prosecute but you have to assume they will.

Posted by: creesteN Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 09:31
Post #1280247

Should I explain in my appeal why I think I'm in the right and theyre in the wrong? My friend did this and they havent prosecuted him or taken him to magistrates either.

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 09:37
Post #1280252

If the plate is compliant then you have a defence regardless of what they do. Whether they do actually prosecute is not certain - but issuing CoFP's requires little effort and they probably hope you'd just pay it. But they may prosecute...

Posted by: creesteN Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 12:03
Post #1280317

Also this was written in the email.

QUOTE
The offence was outlined to you at the time of the incident and you were shown a correct plate that was on the police vehicle as a comparison.


By that she means that the officer showed me a smooth plate etc. Ridiculous.

Posted by: baroudeur Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 12:58
Post #1280334

QUOTE (Unzippy @ Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 10:02) *
Raised letters - so the officer is saying 3D is not allowed?



There is nothing in the Display Regs or BS AU 145d that say that they are specifically allowed either. They do state that.......

Retroreflecting number plates may be manufactured from any material which performs satisfactorily in service, providing the requirements of this standard are met

The inference is that if all aspects of the regulations can be met then 3d characters are compliant. There is mention of holes for attaching characters which, logically, implies such characters must be 3d.

However, the plate in the photo could be non-compliant as the BS AU 145d/maker marking is too long and doesn't seem to show a supplier in the central area as specified on page 6 here

https://www.bikechatforums.com/files/bs_au_145d.pdf

Display Regs here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/561/pdfs/uksi_20010561_en.pdf


Posted by: creesteN Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 13:21
Post #1280345

QUOTE (baroudeur @ Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 13:58) *
QUOTE (Unzippy @ Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 10:02) *
Raised letters - so the officer is saying 3D is not allowed?



There is nothing in the Display Regs or BS AU 145d that say that they are specifically allowed either. They do state that.......

Retroreflecting number plates may be manufactured from any material which performs satisfactorily in service, providing the requirements of this standard are met

The inference is that if all aspects of the regulations can be met then 3d characters are compliant. There is mention of holes for attaching characters which, logically, implies such characters must be 3d.

However, the plate in the photo could be non-compliant as the BS AU 145d/maker marking is too long and doesn't seem to show a supplier in the central area as specified on page 6 here

https://www.bikechatforums.com/files/bs_au_145d.pdf

Display Regs here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/561/pdfs/uksi_20010561_en.pdf


Thank you for that. That being said; should I take this risk?

Posted by: Unzippy Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 13:26
Post #1280347

I know it is not gospel, but it is a start:

https://www.gov.uk/displaying-number-plates/rules-number-plates


QUOTE
Characters on a number plate can be 3D.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 14:41
Post #1280356

QUOTE (creesteN @ Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 14:21) *
Thank you for that. That being said; should I take this risk?

Impossible for any of us to say as it is your money at stake. If you decline the CoFP they they may or may not follow through with a prosecution. And if they do prosecute, they may or may not prove beyond reasonable doubt in court that your plate was non-compliant. Effectively high stakes double or quits, but where you don't know the odds.

Posted by: creesteN Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 15:19
Post #1280365

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 15:41) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 14:21) *
Thank you for that. That being said; should I take this risk?

Impossible for any of us to say as it is your money at stake. If you decline the CoFP they they may or may not follow through with a prosecution. And if they do prosecute, they may or may not prove beyond reasonable doubt in court that your plate was non-compliant. Effectively high stakes double or quits, but where you don't know the odds.


Do I have good grounds to defend myself?

Posted by: andy_foster Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 16:16
Post #1280377

QUOTE (creesteN @ Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 16:19) *
Do I have good grounds to defend myself?


Probably/possibly.

The reasons provided by the occifer for issuing whatever it is you have been issued with (can't be arsed trawling through 6 pages of dumb questions*) do not describe anything that constitutes an offence. However, that does not mean that they do not have evidence of some other breach of the regulations (e.g being easily readable at the corners of the diamond).

If the prosecution's evidence is simply that they characters are raised and the plate looks different to standard plates, there should be no case to answer (although the prosecution might have some questions to answer).


* It is generally better to ask dumb questions here than wait to find the answers in court, but there are exceptions/limits.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 16:49
Post #1280384

QUOTE (creesteN @ Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 16:19) *
Do I have good grounds to defend myself?

As AF has said possibly, but it depends on the prosecutions case. Certainly there are elements of your plate that would, at best, be at the very edges of the legislation and they may or may not be seeking to prosecute on those elements.

The CoFP offer is designed for those who admit their guilt and therefore get a discount because the prosecution doesn't have to prepare a case. Therefore if you do not think you are guilty and/or feel the prosecution cannot or will not prepare a case against you then you should of course reject the CoFP.

However, if the prosecution then prepare a case which makes you change your mind, you are then into much more expensive territory, albeit you will still get a discount on the fine and much lower costs for an early guilty plea. You have enough opinions on here as to whether they will or will not have a compelling case, though in magistrates court even a weak case can get a guilty verdict.

Personally if I felt I was not guilty I would reject it on principle - but it is your money, not mine. Although TBH as I have said I personally think you would almost certainly lose at magistrates court if it got that far because even with a legal advisor magistrates tend to side with the authorities where there is grey that needs to be interpreted as black or white.

Posted by: Logician Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 17:16
Post #1280387

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 17:49) *
Although TBH as I have said I personally think you would almost certainly lose at magistrates court if it got that far because even with a legal advisor magistrates tend to side with the authorities where there is grey that needs to be interpreted as black or white.


In my experience it is very often the legal advisor that sides with the authorities, and the magistrates who have more doubts.



While there is no appeal against the fixed penalty, it would do no harm to write rejecting it and opting for a trial in the magistrates' court and mentioning why you believe that your plate is legal, enclosing a photo if that illustrates the point; write calmly, clearly and dispassionately. That might be enough to persuade them not to bother taking your case to trial.

I would also put your plate back in the standard position, I doubt it would even have been looked at if it had been there at the time. It may or may not look cool where it is, but is it worth it if it attracts unwelcome attention?

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 04:22
Post #1280498

QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 25 Apr 2017 - 18:16) *
While there is no appeal against the fixed penalty, it would do no harm to write rejecting it and opting for a trial in the magistrates' court and mentioning why you believe that your plate is legal, enclosing a photo if that illustrates the point; write calmly, clearly and dispassionately. That might be enough to persuade them not to bother taking your case to trial.

I would agree, I'd also note the officers specifically mentioned 'issues' and rebut them in turn.

Posted by: creesteN Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 09:07
Post #1280538

Do i send my letter of rejection via email or does it have to be in writing?

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 09:10
Post #1280539

Since there is no formal "appeal" you can do it how you like.

Posted by: peterguk Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 09:13
Post #1280540

You either accept the CoFP and pay up, or reject the CoFP and opt for a trial.

Posted by: Jlc Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 09:28
Post #1280546

Any letter (I wouldn't call it an appeal per se) should set out why you think the plate is compliant. (They haven't really set out why it is not)

I'm not convinced they'll actually prosecute but they might - so be prepared for this possibility if you 'reject' the CoFP. Any prosecution would require effort and CoFP's are a low effort method of policing - but be sure of your position.

The 'safe' option would be to buy plain plates, pay the CoFP and move on.

Posted by: baroudeur Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 10:58
Post #1280586

As the plates were purchased from an authorised supplier in the correct way the plate should conform to the legal requirements and the supplier should provide evidence to that fact to support the OP's case.

https://www.gov.uk/number-plate-supplier

The supplier is required to keep a record of plates purchased so a copy of that should be obtained. Showing this to the police may persuade them that they have no case.

Posted by: creesteN Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 22:50
Post #1280759

Based on your experience, how much more (in terms of fees) am I possibly risking if I lose?

Posted by: peterguk Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 23:03
Post #1280764

QUOTE (creesteN @ Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 23:50) *
Based on your experience, how much more (in terms of fees) am I possibly risking if I lose?


Your biggest cost if you lose a trial can be around £600 in prosecution's costs. Add to that the fine and victim surcharge.

Posted by: Logician Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 23:49
Post #1280772

When you write to the police, remember the only issues they have now stated are that the plates are non-standard and the letters are raised, so do not mention anything else the officer said at the time. You need to say that:

1. The plates were purchased from a Government approved supplier as road legal plates, they are not non-standard. (It would be worth contacting the supplier, telling them of the problem, and asking them to confirm the plates are legal in every respect, particularly the raised letters. They have to keep a record of plates they make, so they should be able to do that.

2. There is no reason letters cannot be raised. Copy to them https://www.gov.uk/displaying-number-plates/rules-number-plates leaflet which states characters on a number plate can be 3D. (Earlier a DVLA bulletin was mentioned, but that does not seem to be available online, it would be worth asking the DVLA for a copy. Details are below)

DVLA Bulletin 21/11 (21/2011) (partly reproduced below)

Misrepresented Number Plates
Please be aware that the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency ( DVLA ) has been dealing with an increased number of enquiries dealing with raised lettering or metal number plates. DVLA,s position is that there is nothing in the British Standard ( BS AU 145d) or in the Road Vehicles ( Display of Registration Marks ) Regulations 2001 that specifically excludes raised lettering or metal plates.

Although pressed metal plates are not excluded, the plate must not be treated in any way which impairs its recognition by a camera and film or any device. The Font must not be altered from the specified Charles Wright Font.




Posted by: creesteN Thu, 27 Apr 2017 - 00:07
Post #1280773

I don't quite understand. It's a big risk and not all things are black and white but there's no harm in rejecting and sending a letter? What if they do not get persuaded by the letter and still take it to magistrates?

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 27 Apr 2017 - 00:44
Post #1280777

Then you defend it there with the same information.

Posted by: Logician Thu, 27 Apr 2017 - 01:33
Post #1280779

We have said at various stages of this thread that your low risk option is simply to pay the fixed penalty, get a new plate and fix it in the original position. If you want to defend the plate, you may persuade the police not to take the matter to court by convincing them that your plate is legal, or you may not. If they decide to prosecute you, then the fixed penalty option has gone, but you can cut your losses and plead guilty when the fine will be 50% of your net weekly income, less 33% discount for the guilty plea, plus a surcharge of 10% (minimum £30), plus costs of £85. If you plead not guilty but are found guilty, the fine will be 50% of your net weekly income, plus a surcharge of 10% (minimum £30), plus costs with a guideline of £620. Only you can decide which way you want to go, nothing is certain about the outcome, we cannot tell you what the police will decide or what a court might decide. You seem to have a good case if they are just concerned about the raised letters, I would be more concerned about the positioning, but the court may defer to what the police say is legal.

Posted by: creesteN Thu, 4 May 2017 - 09:13
Post #1282364

Having sent a letter appealing and stating the reasons why I think the plate is legal and requesting them to cancel the fine; this is the response:

QUOTE
Dear Sir

I acknowledge receipt of your email.


As my previous email you have the option to either pay the £100 or dispute the offence and the matter would proceed to court where you can
Put any mitigation to the magistrates.

You have until the xxth May to either comply with the Conditional Offer or dispute the offence.


Any advice?

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 4 May 2017 - 09:17
Post #1282367

QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 4 May 2017 - 10:13) *
Having sent a letter appealing and stating the reasons why I think the plate is legal and requesting them to cancel the fine; this is the response:

QUOTE
Dear Sir

I acknowledge receipt of your email.


As my previous email you have the option to either pay the £100 or dispute the offence and the matter would proceed to court where you can
Put any mitigation to the magistrates.

You have until the xxth May to either comply with the Conditional Offer or dispute the offence.


Any advice?


Seems your choices are obvious.

Accept CoFP or go to court.

No one can make that decision for you. You have 7 pages of discussion and advice, but the final decision is yours.

If you have deep pockets and are a chancer, take it to court. Else pay the coFP and get a legal plate (made at Halfords or similar) and mount it in same position as everyone else.

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 4 May 2017 - 09:49
Post #1282388

Indeed, but 'mitigation'? In this context that's a bit presumptuous.

There's no point going to court to plead guilty and submit mitigation!

Posted by: NewJudge Thu, 4 May 2017 - 10:18
Post #1282402

Quite so.

It was always going to be thus. Disputes like this are rarely settled out of court. Officials like the court to make rulings. There is absolutely no point in going to court to plead guilty, whatever the mitigation. The mitigation may secure a slightly reduced fine but you will still be lumbered with £85 costs and the surcharge of 10% of the fine and those alone will exceed the fixed penalty. As has been said (a good while ago, I think) you makes your choice and (probably) pays your money. If you believe you have a reasonable chance of acquittal then go for it. The cost of failure will run into many hundreds of pounds.

Posted by: Logician Thu, 4 May 2017 - 11:05
Post #1282419

QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 4 May 2017 - 10:49) *
Indeed, but 'mitigation'? In this context that's a bit presumptuous. There's no point going to court to plead guilty and submit mitigation!


I think that is simply a form letter, sent out without relevance to the particular case.


Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 4 May 2017 - 11:36
Post #1282434

Indeed but a very badly written one!

Posted by: creesteN Thu, 4 May 2017 - 11:56
Post #1282443

I have two questions. If I decide to go to court, and lose, am I able to spread the payment over small amounts (say 10 weekly) provided my student income is very low?

Secondly, I have exams and holidays booked with my close ones, if the date doesn't suit me is there a possibility of postponing it to a date that suits me?

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 4 May 2017 - 12:03
Post #1282446

QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 4 May 2017 - 12:56) *
I have two questions. If I decide to go to court, and lose, am I able to spread the payment over small amounts (say 10 weekly) provided my student income is very low?

Secondly, I have exams and holidays booked with my close ones, if the date doesn't suit me is there a possibility of postponing it to a date that suits me?


Yes to both.

Posted by: creesteN Fri, 5 May 2017 - 08:41
Post #1282671

Does the fine go on any records? Police system or insurance? Or is it not recordable?

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 5 May 2017 - 09:23
Post #1282699

It is not a recordable offence.

That doesn't prevent it being putting onto the system to come back on a 'CRB' (or whatever it's called this week) check but it is vanishingly unlikely.

The fine isn't really relevant, its the conviction for a criminal offence (or in the case of an FP, strictly its accepting you committed it as there would be no conviction).

Posted by: bama Fri, 5 May 2017 - 13:57
Post #1282767

According to the High Court, accepting an FPN is NOT an admission of any kind.
most people think that it is - but in fact it isn't.

Posted by: peterguk Fri, 5 May 2017 - 14:01
Post #1282770

QUOTE (creesteN @ Fri, 5 May 2017 - 09:41) *
insurance?


Depends on what question the insurance company ask. Some ask about CoFPs, some don't.

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 5 May 2017 - 15:13
Post #1282783

QUOTE (bama @ Fri, 5 May 2017 - 14:57) *
According to the High Court, accepting an FPN is NOT an admission of any kind.
most people think that it is - but in fact it isn't.

According to the High Court, accepting a penalty notice for disorder is not a conviction (that's the case I'm aware of). They weren't dealing specifically with fixed penalty notices under the Road Traffic Offenders Act. By analogy an FPN is not a "conviction" but is counted as such for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 by virtue of s 58 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Posted by: andy_foster Fri, 5 May 2017 - 15:29
Post #1282792

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 5 May 2017 - 10:23) *
The fine isn't really relevant, its the conviction for a criminal offence (or in the case of an FP, strictly its accepting you committed it as there would be no conviction).


For the purposes of declaring points on a insurance proposal, assuming that the law had not recently been changed to require the insurers to ask the right questions, it is endorsements that are relevant.
For the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, it is the fine that is relevant.

Posted by: creesteN Fri, 5 May 2017 - 22:55
Post #1282906

They ask for "convictions within last 5 years". I think I might pay this fine on Monday. The court fee risk scared me out of it even though I feel like I could win it.

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 6 May 2017 - 19:49
Post #1283070

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 5 May 2017 - 16:13) *
QUOTE (bama @ Fri, 5 May 2017 - 14:57) *
According to the High Court, accepting an FPN is NOT an admission of any kind.
most people think that it is - but in fact it isn't.

According to the High Court, accepting a penalty notice for disorder is not a conviction (that's the case I'm aware of). They weren't dealing specifically with fixed penalty notices under the Road Traffic Offenders Act. By analogy an FPN is not a "conviction" but is counted as such for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 by virtue of s 58 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.


Strictly speaking section 58 RTOA has been abolished by paragraph 47 of schedule 3 of the Road Safety Act 2006

Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 6 May 2017 - 20:20
Post #1283075

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 6 May 2017 - 20:49) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 5 May 2017 - 16:13) *
QUOTE (bama @ Fri, 5 May 2017 - 14:57) *
According to the High Court, accepting an FPN is NOT an admission of any kind.
most people think that it is - but in fact it isn't.

According to the High Court, accepting a penalty notice for disorder is not a conviction (that's the case I'm aware of). They weren't dealing specifically with fixed penalty notices under the Road Traffic Offenders Act. By analogy an FPN is not a "conviction" but is counted as such for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 by virtue of s 58 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.


Strictly speaking section 58 RTOA has been abolished by paragraph 47 of schedule 3 of the Road Safety Act 2006

And replaced by identical provisions.

Posted by: creesteN Sun, 7 May 2017 - 14:47
Post #1283143

Well.... I have submitted an appeal to go to magistrate court instead of paying it. Thank you all for your help and I'll keep you updated.

Posted by: NewJudge Sun, 7 May 2017 - 16:49
Post #1283156

Bear in mind it is not an "appeal". You are asking for the matter to be heard in court instead of being dealt with by way of a fixed penalty.

You will have to plead Not Guilty (pleading guilty is pointless if you had the chance of a fixed penalty). You need to find out what the allegation is (i.e. in what way did your number plate not conform to the regulations). Apologies if you have already done this. I lost track of this about five pages ago! cool.gif

Posted by: creesteN Sun, 7 May 2017 - 17:20
Post #1283158

QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sun, 7 May 2017 - 17:49) *
Bear in mind it is not an "appeal". You are asking for the matter to be heard in court instead of being dealt with by way of a fixed penalty.

You will have to plead Not Guilty (pleading guilty is pointless if you had the chance of a fixed penalty). You need to find out what the allegation is (i.e. in what way did your number plate not conform to the regulations). Apologies if you have already done this. I lost track of this about five pages ago! cool.gif


Sorry. My terminology in this area is extremely bad! What I meant to say is I have requested the case to go to court as I don't believe I'm guilty whatsoever. And yes, I have indeed contacted them. They have been in touch with the officer and the two reasons for the fine are a. Non-standard plates b. Raised letters.

Posted by: southpaw82 Sun, 7 May 2017 - 19:37
Post #1283175

Non-standard in what way?

Posted by: andy_foster Sun, 7 May 2017 - 20:12
Post #1283188

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 7 May 2017 - 20:37) *
Non-standard in what way?


That's the $64,000 question. The occifer has apparently decided that the OP's plates are illegal because they are "non standard" and "the letters are raised" - and that is all that he is prepared to tell the OP at this time.

Posted by: NewJudge Sun, 7 May 2017 - 20:53
Post #1283200

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 7 May 2017 - 21:12) *
That's the $64,000 question. The occifer has apparently decided that the OP's plates are illegal because they are "non standard" and "the letters are raised" - and that is all that he is prepared to tell the OP at this time.


Then he (or his representative) may be called upon to expand a little once the OP has pleaded Not Guilty.

Posted by: creesteN Tue, 9 May 2017 - 19:36
Post #1283818

Case has been passed to magistrate court and they will contact me in the near future.

Posted by: Mr Rusty Wed, 10 May 2017 - 10:22
Post #1283918

QUOTE
"non standard" and "the letters are raised"


FWIW, provided that it actually is the case, I would be acting as an "ordinary member of the public". i.e., " I went to an authorised number plate producer, produced my documents, received a plate with the correct BS number on, and cannot understand what the problem is"

Don't think I would want to argue technicalities, and it doesn't sound like position is an issue at all - particularly if no detailed measurements were taken at the time. Personally I'd keep it to one simple defense and leave it to the prosecutor to prove why a plate with a BS number, from a legit producer isn't compliant.

Maybe, take a photo of the Alfa with the offset plate from new, just in case you get ambushed with that.

Posted by: samthecat Wed, 10 May 2017 - 10:54
Post #1283932

There are two info leaflets from the DVLA that may be useful for the OP and are nice and simple in what they say:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207546/V796.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/533255/inf104-vehicle-registration-numbers-and-number-plates.pdf

I would suggest if you have those, a letter from the supplier confirming they are authorised to supply plates and the ones you bought were compliant with legislation as well as photographs of the plates in question you would have the start of a defence.

Posted by: bill w Wed, 10 May 2017 - 12:43
Post #1283979

QUOTE (samthecat @ Wed, 10 May 2017 - 11:54) *
There are two info leaflets from the DVLA that may be useful for the OP and are nice and simple in what they say:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207546/V796.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/533255/inf104-vehicle-registration-numbers-and-number-plates.pdf

I would suggest if you have those, a letter from the supplier confirming they are authorised to supply plates and the ones you bought were compliant with legislation as well as photographs of the plates in question you would have the start of a defence.



See also http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=112479&view=findpost&p=1275445, which should help show they are an approved supplier.

Posted by: Jlc Wed, 10 May 2017 - 12:46
Post #1283983

QUOTE (bill w @ Wed, 10 May 2017 - 13:43) *
See also http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=112479&view=findpost&p=1275445, which should help show they are an approved supplier.

Which they are. Although these websites should be used with certain caution (on legal 'advice') I think it's persuasive and should be part of the defence.

Posted by: creesteN Wed, 10 May 2017 - 16:06
Post #1284033

In court, should I mention anything in regards to how the situation arised? How the officer gave me a ticket simply because I asked him a question?

Also, if they come up with different reasons (ie. not the non-standard plate or raised letters); can I argue that this is not what was told to me over e-mail by the Central Ticket Office beforehand?

Posted by: Jlc Wed, 10 May 2017 - 16:14
Post #1284036

Frankly, the plate is either compliant (legal) or not. How it all arised and what they told you is mostly irrelevant to that fact.

You'll have to wait and see what they say on their statement. It'll be interesting what they say (other than 'not compliant') - even if they actually decide to prosecute. (You never know)

Posted by: creesteN Wed, 10 May 2017 - 16:15
Post #1284037

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 10 May 2017 - 17:14) *
Frankly, the plate is either compliant (legal) or not. How it all arised and what they told you is mostly irrelevant to that fact.

You'll have to wait and see what they say on their statement. It'll be interesting what they say (other than 'not compliant') - even if they actually decide to prosecute. (You never know)


I'm not quite aware of this; when do I see the statement that you mention?

Posted by: peterguk Wed, 10 May 2017 - 17:05
Post #1284047

QUOTE (creesteN @ Wed, 10 May 2017 - 17:15) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 10 May 2017 - 17:14) *
Frankly, the plate is either compliant (legal) or not. How it all arised and what they told you is mostly irrelevant to that fact.

You'll have to wait and see what they say on their statement. It'll be interesting what they say (other than 'not compliant') - even if they actually decide to prosecute. (You never know)


I'm not quite aware of this; when do I see the statement that you mention?


After you have pleaded NG in court, but prior to the trial.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Wed, 10 May 2017 - 20:50
Post #1284093

QUOTE (Mr Rusty @ Wed, 10 May 2017 - 11:22) *
Maybe, take a photo of the Alfa with the offset plate from new, just in case you get ambushed with that.

Probably a waste of time, if the angle is not raised then don't raise it, if it is showing an offset plate at a totally different angle would be irrelevant and detrimental ("here's how a mass produced version is").

Posted by: creesteN Thu, 11 May 2017 - 00:06
Post #1284138

QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 10 May 2017 - 18:05) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Wed, 10 May 2017 - 17:15) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 10 May 2017 - 17:14) *
Frankly, the plate is either compliant (legal) or not. How it all arised and what they told you is mostly irrelevant to that fact.

You'll have to wait and see what they say on their statement. It'll be interesting what they say (other than 'not compliant') - even if they actually decide to prosecute. (You never know)


I'm not quite aware of this; when do I see the statement that you mention?


After you have pleaded NG in court, but prior to the trial.


Would you think it's possible that I get legal advice here after seeing the statement on the day, or is the time between me reading the statement and the trial too short for me to even post here?

Posted by: Logician Thu, 11 May 2017 - 01:08
Post #1284141

What will probably happen is that you will be asked to attend court, the charge will be put to you, you plead not guilty, you are asked the basis of your defence, you reply that the plates complied with regulations, you are asked if you wish to call any witnesses, then a date for the actual trial will be fixed. You will be given a copy of the officer's statement either at the first hearing or by post prior to the trial.

Posted by: creesteN Sat, 26 Aug 2017 - 22:30
Post #1311429

I have received a single justice procedure notice. The statement says that the officer was not able to verify if the plate met British standards despite having the BS mark. As it was 'non-standard' he believed its illegal. He was not certain.

He also states that the number plate had the postcode but afterwards was not able to find the company relating to it.

Both points are complete nonsense.

The charge description states both my rear and front have raised lettering. That is also nonsense. I had a standard plate at the rear. Another point made in the description is that I have no supporting documentation that the plate is legal.

Any advice? What's my course of action?

Posted by: peterguk Sat, 26 Aug 2017 - 23:07
Post #1311432

QUOTE (creesteN @ Sat, 26 Aug 2017 - 23:30) *
What's my course of action?


2 choices:

Plead guilty, and the issue will be dealt with in your absence under SJPN procedure.

or

Plead not guilty and go to trial.

Posted by: creesteN Sat, 26 Aug 2017 - 23:15
Post #1311433

QUOTE (peterguk @ Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 00:07) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Sat, 26 Aug 2017 - 23:30) *
What's my course of action?


2 choices:

Plead guilty, and the issue will be dealt with in your absence under SJPN procedure.

or

Plead not guilty and go to trial.


I would most definitely like to plead not guilty. Their statements seem amusing.

I start an internship now and have a few questions. Do I get to choose the date of trial? If not, what if my company does not allow me to take the day off?

Can I expect some kind of travel cost reimbursement if I win the case?

Can I plead not guilty online? Or is there a benefit or doing it over post. What should my statement consist of at this stage so I don't say too much or too little?

Posted by: The Rookie Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 06:56
Post #1311445

No you don't get to choose your trial date, but you can provide a list of dates you can't attend (as long as you are sensible), as for whether the company will let you take time off, that's between you and them.

Yes, you can ask for costs.

No benefit in using the post, I'd suggest a simple explanation that the prosecution have submitted no reason why it is in fact illegal, the officer wasn't sure which isn't a reason to then bring a prosecution when he's had months to find out! Pretty poor show really.

Posted by: Lodesman Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 07:49
Post #1311451

QUOTE (creesteN @ Sat, 26 Aug 2017 - 23:30) *
Another point made in the description is that I have no supporting documentation that the plate is legal.


Has anyone ?

Posted by: creesteN Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 09:02
Post #1311462

They also have two contradicting statements. One officer states that there is no official supporting documentation to show that the plate is retroreflective.

The other witness statement says the plate was reflective and of pressed metal :/

Posted by: Fredd Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 09:06
Post #1311463

QUOTE (creesteN @ Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 10:02) *
They also have two contradicting statements. One officer states that there is no official supporting documentation to show that the plate is retroreflective.

The other witness statement says the plate was reflective and of pressed metal :/

Those two statements aren't actually contradictory.

Posted by: creesteN Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 09:08
Post #1311464

QUOTE (Fredd @ Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 10:06) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 10:02) *
They also have two contradicting statements. One officer states that there is no official supporting documentation to show that the plate is retroreflective.

The other witness statement says the plate was reflective and of pressed metal :/

Those two statements aren't actually contradictory.


In fact I agree. Sorry about that!

Posted by: creesteN Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 22:11
Post #1312078

Not guilty plea submitted. I quoted the officer saying he's not certain in why I feel I'm not guilty. Also ticked the option that I'm not agreeing with the witness statement he made regarding "non-standard" plates.

I also realised he lied in the charge description. He states my rear had raised letters but his photographs should prove to him otherwise. Is this something I should raise in court?

Posted by: Logician Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 23:42
Post #1312091

Photographs taken by police are often of very poor quality and the ones presented may not show the detail you require. I suggest you take your own photographs showing the features you want to prove were present, and in court you can ask the officer to examine them and accept they are of the same plates. Also provide whatever information you can to show that the postcode is that of a registered supplier of number plates. The government site may help https://www.gov.uk/number-plate-supplier

Posted by: bill w Wed, 30 Aug 2017 - 00:23
Post #1312098

QUOTE (creesteN @ Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 23:11) *
I also realised he lied in the charge description. He states my rear had raised letters but his photographs should prove to him otherwise. Is this something I should raise in court?


A comment from me as a pure outside with no legal or court experience; I'm sure the regulars will pull me up if I'm wrong.

Suggesting that the copper lied, may well not help your case at all.
However suggesting they are mistaken about the rear plate, and supplying photographic evidence to support your point, may well help case doubt on the accuracy of the police evidence about the front plate as well.

It's all in the wording and the approach you see. wink.gif

Posted by: Logician Wed, 30 Aug 2017 - 11:16
Post #1312165

Quite right, police officers never lie but are sometimes mistaken and to be fair probably in your case it is a genuine mistake by an officer who sounds very unsure of his ground.

Posted by: dawmdt Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 11:55
Post #1313552

People are suggesting he takes photographs with him... why not just remove the plates and take them in with him...?

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 12:15
Post #1313564

QUOTE (dawmdt @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 12:55) *
People are suggesting he takes photographs with him... why not just remove the plates and take them in with him...?

Which is easier? Plus, if he wants to leave his car somewhere it's an offence not to display plates, which would be somewhat ironic.

Posted by: IanJohnsonWS14 Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 06:39
Post #1313857

It would be worth the cost of a pair of plates to have them in court.

After all if found guilty the OP will need the new plates anyway!

Posted by: creesteN Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 15:02
Post #1319757

I have received a letter. It contains summons on referral to court with the date and time. Also contains the statement mentioned previously that has the error of the rear and front plate being in subject of being pressed.

It also says that my case was considered under single justice procedure however given my reasoning for not guilty its now a full magistrate court case. Not sure what that means.

There's also multiple mentions of possible disqualification, which I find absurd.

If I don't attend, it threatens me with an arrest warrant.

Also, regarding my financial information. I'm a student, but I'm currently on a paid internship placement. It's some sort of short term income which will end sooner than later. How can I put this point across so I don't get treated like this is my stable income?

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 16:11
Post #1319775

A single justice on,y adjudicates on guilty pleas, as soon as you entered a not guilty plea a trial was only possible at the magistrates court.

Any traffic offence can result in disqualification, so however unlikely it is, it isn't absurd and the facts are merely being conveyed to you.

Posted by: AntonyMMM Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 16:13
Post #1319776

It means you pleaded Not Guilty so the SJ procedure was unable to deal with it and has passed it to court for trial (which is what you wanted).

You need to prepare your case and attend on the day to present it. Get together all the references to plate regs that you will need.

It is a summons to attend court - not an optional request - if you don't attend without the agreement of the court (or arranging an adjournment) then arrest is one of the options they have to make sure you do attend......although for a simple traffic offence, it would be more likely the case would go ahead in your absence, which you would then lose.

Income only comes into it if you are convicted - fill in the form now giving the info you have ..i.e. put down your intern pay but add a note that it is a temporary placement and your usual income is xx . If you are convicted you will have an opportunity to explain your circumstances to the magistrates before sentencing.

Posted by: creesteN Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 16:27
Post #1319779

Provided I need to take a day off my internship (holiday), travel from London to Manchester and back, can I somehow prove these costs and try to get it reimbursed after the case?

Posted by: peterguk Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 16:45
Post #1319782

QUOTE (creesteN @ Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 17:27) *
Provided I need to take a day off my internship (holiday), travel from London to Manchester and back, can I somehow prove these costs and try to get it reimbursed after the case?


Depends if you win or not.

Posted by: mickR Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 17:12
Post #1319795

Is it just me or does anyone else see this as a rather unnecessary waste of police and court time and resources?

Posted by: creesteN Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 17:18
Post #1319796

Guys. If I lose in court, will this be on my DBS? Will it affect my future employability? I'm worried now.

Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 17:24
Post #1319798

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 17:11) *
Any traffic offence can result in disqualification, so however unlikely it is, it isn't absurd and the facts are merely being conveyed to you.

Rubbish.

QUOTE (creesteN @ Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 18:18) *
Guys. If I lose in court, will this be on my DBS? Will it affect my future employability? I'm worried now.

Even if it did I doubt anyone would care about a number plate offence.

Posted by: Logician Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 20:27
Post #1319860

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 17:11) *
Any traffic offence can result in disqualification, so however unlikely it is, it isn't absurd and the facts are merely being conveyed to you.

Only an endorsable offence can result in disqualification.

Posted by: squaredeal Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 23:09
Post #1319898

QUOTE (creesteN @ Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 18:18) *
Guys. If I lose in court, will this be on my DBS?

Not unless you used the plate as a weapon or there were other additive factors.

Posted by: samthecat Sun, 1 Oct 2017 - 07:08
Post #1319917

QUOTE (squaredeal @ Sun, 1 Oct 2017 - 00:09) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 18:18) *
Guys. If I lose in court, will this be on my DBS?

Not unless you used the plate as a weapon or there were other additive factors.

A DBS check will show convictions, if the OP is convicted at court then why wouldn't it show up?

As to whether any potential employer would give two hoots about it, that's a different question.

Posted by: baroudeur Sun, 1 Oct 2017 - 10:38
Post #1319944

QUOTE (creesteN @ Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 16:02) *
I have received a letter. It contains summons on referral to court with the date and time. Also contains the statement mentioned previously that has the error of the rear and front plate being in subject of being pressed.

It also says that my case was considered under single justice procedure however given my reasoning for not guilty its now a full magistrate court case. Not sure what that means.

There's also multiple mentions of possible disqualification, which I find absurd.

If I don't attend, it threatens me with an arrest warrant.

Also, regarding my financial information. I'm a student, but I'm currently on a paid internship placement. It's some sort of short term income which will end sooner than later. How can I put this point across so I don't get treated like this is my stable income?



Here is a copy of the https://www.bikechatforums.com/files/bs_au_145d.pdf

and the relevant part

NOTE. Retroreflecting number plates may be manufactured from any material which performs satisfactorily in service, providing the requirements of this standard are met

If the manufacturer has marked the plate with BS AU145d then it reasonable to assume that it complies.

Posted by: creesteN Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 21:19
Post #1322416

I'm really worried about this. First of all the case is not taking place at the magistrate where the incident happened but in the city center of Manchester.

What can I expect from the court case? How does the process look? When should I mention what?

That aside, a lot of people here mentioned "Section 1" and "Section 5.1". Where can I find these documents as proof? I know the quotation I need to present.

Also, where can I find DVLA Bulletin 21/11?

Posted by: andy_foster Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 22:24
Post #1322428

giyf

Citing "Section 1" (ignoring that it is more likely to be a paragraph than a section) without indicating what it is "section 1" of is bad form. However, if you were to google the passage(s) cited, it would be apparent that they are referring to BSAU 145d - which has been linked to many times in this very thread.

Posted by: creesteN Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 22:32
Post #1322429

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 23:24) *
giyf

Citing "Section 1" (ignoring that it is more likely to be a paragraph than a section) without indicating what it is "section 1" of is bad form. However, if you were to google the passage(s) cited, it would be apparent that they are referring to BSAU 145d - which has been linked to many times in this very thread.


Thank you. Have you any idea about the DVLA Bulletin? I looked for it without success.

Posted by: Logician Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 00:39
Post #1322432

It seems not to be available online but there are references to it such as:

DVLA Bulletin 21/11 (21/2011) (partly reproduced below)

Misrepresented Number Plates
Please be aware that the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency ( DVLA ) has been dealing with an increased number of enquiries dealing with raised lettering or metal number plates. DVLA,s position is that there is nothing in the British Standard ( BS AU 145d) or in the Road Vehicles ( Display of Registration Marks ) Regulations 2001 that specifically excludes raised lettering or metal plates.

Although pressed metal plates are not excluded, the plate must not be treated in any way which impairs its recognition by a camera and film or any device. The Font must not be altered from the specified Charles Wright Font.

Posted by: superSmiffy Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 07:04
Post #1322439

One of the issues with raised characters is not the font being incorrect but that the material used to create the font is reflective, some are retroreflectice and both are proscribed.

The characters that fake the look of 3D text are also proscribed because they are made of characters that have more than one stroke, i.e. they have black and grey and sometimes no colour sections within the character. This also makes the characters less recognisable to a camera, especially illuminated IR because the characters appear with less of the character being non-reflective.

Raised characters are allowed but they must be non-reflective and they often are not.

Posted by: creesteN Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 08:14
Post #1322451

QUOTE (superSmiffy @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 08:04) *
One of the issues with raised characters is not the font being incorrect but that the material used to create the font is reflective, some are retroreflectice and both are proscribed.

The characters that fake the look of 3D text are also proscribed because they are made of characters that have more than one stroke, i.e. they have black and grey and sometimes no colour sections within the character. This also makes the characters less recognisable to a camera, especially illuminated IR because the characters appear with less of the character being non-reflective.

Raised characters are allowed but they must be non-reflective and they often are not.


I have a message from the supplier saying "we don't make our registration plates that way. The letters are not reflective.". And I also have a photo where the plate bounces light back but not the lettering.

Posted by: superSmiffy Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 08:28
Post #1322453

QUOTE (creesteN @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 09:14) *
QUOTE (superSmiffy @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 08:04) *
One of the issues with raised characters is not the font being incorrect but that the material used to create the font is reflective, some are retroreflectice and both are proscribed.

The characters that fake the look of 3D text are also proscribed because they are made of characters that have more than one stroke, i.e. they have black and grey and sometimes no colour sections within the character. This also makes the characters less recognisable to a camera, especially illuminated IR because the characters appear with less of the character being non-reflective.

Raised characters are allowed but they must be non-reflective and they often are not.


I have a message from the supplier saying "we don't make our registration plates that way. The letters are not reflective.". And I also have a photo where the plate bounces light back but not the lettering.

That's good then.
Did you ever put a picture of your plate on? Part of it would hide your ID of course.

Posted by: samthecat Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 09:26
Post #1322473

Are you in possession of the officers statement and can you post it on here (with personal details redacted)?

I may have missed something but was the issue not originally to do with the location of your number plate rather than its construction?


Posted by: creesteN Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 15:31
Post #1322570

QUOTE (superSmiffy @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 09:28) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 09:14) *
QUOTE (superSmiffy @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 08:04) *
One of the issues with raised characters is not the font being incorrect but that the material used to create the font is reflective, some are retroreflectice and both are proscribed.

The characters that fake the look of 3D text are also proscribed because they are made of characters that have more than one stroke, i.e. they have black and grey and sometimes no colour sections within the character. This also makes the characters less recognisable to a camera, especially illuminated IR because the characters appear with less of the character being non-reflective.

Raised characters are allowed but they must be non-reflective and they often are not.


I have a message from the supplier saying "we don't make our registration plates that way. The letters are not reflective.". And I also have a photo where the plate bounces light back but not the lettering.

That's good then.
Did you ever put a picture of your plate on? Part of it would hide your ID of course.

If you mean the photograph where the light bounces, I can do so as soon as I get back home tonight. I'll do it ASAP.

QUOTE (samthecat @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 10:26) *
Are you in possession of the officers statement and can you post it on here (with personal details redacted)?

I may have missed something but was the issue not originally to do with the location of your number plate rather than its construction?


"On ... at ... a vehicle, namely ... VRM ..., on a road namely, ...., when the registration mark required to be fixed on the front and rear of the vehicle failed to comply with the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 in that the plate was pressed metal with raised lettering on both the front and rear of the vehicle, no supporting documentation to suggest plate has been tested against British standard BS AU 145d. Contrary to section 59(1) of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994."

This was written in the case on my court summons. I have some other documents somewhere at home with other statements, witness statement (second officer), and descriptions. They all seem to mention the same thing.

The issue was never with the location. It was mainly the fact that it is "non-standard", as the officer said in many locations and that the letters are "raised".

Posted by: Jlc Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 15:50
Post #1322575

Yup, location was discussed but isn't the 'issue'.

Looking back through the thread the plate does have BS145 mark but wasn't the officer's 'liking'?

Posted by: creesteN Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 18:27
Post #1322628

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 16:50) *
Yup, location was discussed but isn't the 'issue'.

Looking back through the thread the plate does have BS145 mark but wasn't the officer's 'liking'?


It does. So does it have a postcode and a supplier name.

Posted by: disgrunt Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 11:20
Post #1322804

Have you asked the supplier to provide evidence for your defence, say a sworn statement or even turn up in person to defend their firm's reputation?

How much was the plate? If it was over £100 and you paid on a credit. Are I'd be asking oth the credit card company and supplier to be defending their product and would be reminding them that if they have sold me an illegal plate that I would be expecting all children she s incurred their be reimbursed by them, i.e. Fine and increased insurance premiums

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 11:40
Post #1322812

QUOTE (disgrunt @ Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 12:20) *
If it was over £100 and you paid on a credit. Are I'd be asking oth the credit card company and supplier to be defending their product and would be reminding them that if they have sold me an illegal plate that I would be expecting all children she s incurred their be reimbursed by them, i.e. Fine and increased insurance premiums


That's funny biggrin.gif

Posted by: disgrunt Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 11:44
Post #1322815

Fantastic predictive text / auto correct!

But agreed that is very funny.

Posted by: creesteN Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 19:36
Post #1322933

QUOTE (disgrunt @ Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 12:20) *
Have you asked the supplier to provide evidence for your defence, say a sworn statement or even turn up in person to defend their firm's reputation?

How much was the plate? If it was over £100 and you paid on a credit. Are I'd be asking oth the credit card company and supplier to be defending their product and would be reminding them that if they have sold me an illegal plate that I would be expecting all children she s incurred their be reimbursed by them, i.e. Fine and increased insurance premiums


I have initially! Apart from a message of along the lines of "they are made to be legal", I received no more. It was about £14, not £100.

Posted by: creesteN Wed, 18 Oct 2017 - 21:19
Post #1324657

Another response by the supplier, unfortunately this is all I got:

QUOTE
Hello,

these plates are reflective and are road legal.


I have a few questions. I would appreciate your help.




Posted by: Pensioner Wed, 18 Oct 2017 - 22:13
Post #1324674

QUOTE (creesteN @ Wed, 18 Oct 2017 - 22:19) *
Another response by the supplier, unfortunately this is all I got:

QUOTE
Hello,

these plates are reflective and are road legal.


I have a few questions. I would appreciate your help.

  • I think I lost my initial documents that had witness statements and such on them when I first received the charge. Will they be vital to the case? I still have the case summary stuff from the court summons.
  • What actually happens in court? What can I expect? Every post on the forum is regarding speeding or parking charges. They're all very specific.
  • Where can I find the DVLA Bulletin 21/11?. DVLA has not responded back to me.



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207546/V796.pdf

And

DVLA Bulletin 21/11 (21/2011) (partly reproduced below)

Misrepresented Number Plates
Please be aware that the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency ( DVLA ) has been dealing with an increased number of enquiries dealing with raised lettering or metal number plates. DVLA,s position is that there is nothing in the British Standard ( BS AU 145d) or in the Road Vehicles ( Display of Registration Marks ) Regulations 2001 that specifically excludes raised lettering or metal plates.

Although pressed metal plates are not excluded, the plate must not be treated in any way which impairs its recognition by a camera and film or any device. The Font must not be altered from the specified Charles Wright Font.


BS AU145d

In the specification it states in the Scope : NOTE. retroreflecting number plates may be manufactured from any material which performs satisfactory in service, providing the requirements of this standard are met.

Sec 3.6 - retroreflecting number plate
A plate exhibiting the registration mark of a vehicle in which only the background to the registration mark consists of retroreflecting material.

Note:- ANY MATERIAL

Posted by: creesteN Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 00:15
Post #1324686

Where is the source of this DVLA Bulletin? I know the text, it's just that I can't find it anywhere online.

Posted by: Logician Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 01:19
Post #1324702

QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 01:15) *
Where is the source of this DVLA Bulletin? I know the text, it's just that I can't find it anywhere online.


I looked and cannot find it, just many examples of it being quoted. That suggests to me that it is not available from DVLA.


Posted by: bill w Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 09:41
Post #1324742

QUOTE (Logician @ Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 02:19) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 01:15) *
Where is the source of this DVLA Bulletin? I know the text, it's just that I can't find it anywhere online.


I looked and cannot find it, just many examples of it being quoted. That suggests to me that it is not available from DVLA.



It seems you are not alone in enquiring, http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=90123&view=findpost&p=959953 and also the thumbnail attachment on the subsequent post 17

Bill

Posted by: creesteN Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 21:24
Post #1325009

QUOTE (bill w @ Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 10:41) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 02:19) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 01:15) *
Where is the source of this DVLA Bulletin? I know the text, it's just that I can't find it anywhere online.


I looked and cannot find it, just many examples of it being quoted. That suggests to me that it is not available from DVLA.



It seems you are not alone in enquiring, http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=90123&view=findpost&p=959953 and also the thumbnail attachment on the subsequent post 17

Bill


Thank you so much!!!!!!!!!!!! smile.gif Can anyone give me an insight into how the court case looks like? How do I address people? When do I say what? How much law / how much personal talking, etc.

Posted by: superSmiffy Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 07:46
Post #1325062

QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 22:24) *
QUOTE (bill w @ Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 10:41) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 02:19) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 01:15) *
Where is the source of this DVLA Bulletin? I know the text, it's just that I can't find it anywhere online.


I looked and cannot find it, just many examples of it being quoted. That suggests to me that it is not available from DVLA.



It seems you are not alone in enquiring, http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=90123&view=findpost&p=959953 and also the thumbnail attachment on the subsequent post 17

Bill


Thank you so much!!!!!!!!!!!! smile.gif Can anyone give me an insight into how the court case looks like? How do I address people? When do I say what? How much law / how much personal talking, etc.

There will be a bench of 3 magistrates or a district judge.
There will be the legal advisor/clerk of court in front of them.
A prosecutor and you if you are not represented.
The prosecutor opens the case then calls for the witnesses. They will present evidence that you should already have been given 7 days or more beforehand.
When the prosecution Witness has finished their evidence you can ask that Witness some questions about what they have just evidenced.
The prosecotor can re-examine any points you have raised with the Witness.
All witnesses finished, prosecution will close.
You get to give your evidence and you can be questioned.
You get to close your case.
Decision is made.

Call the magistrates or DJ sir or madam.

The decision is returned with reasons then the penalty is decided. You get to speak if you want to make representations about what the penalty should be if you haven’t put in a written statement of means but you should put that in anyway.

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 07:55
Post #1325065

QUOTE (superSmiffy @ Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 08:46) *
The decision is returned with reasons then the penalty is decided.

If you’re convicted! Obviously no penalty if you’re not.

Posted by: superSmiffy Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 09:49
Post #1325116

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 08:55) *
QUOTE (superSmiffy @ Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 08:46) *
The decision is returned with reasons then the penalty is decided.

If you’re convicted! Obviously no penalty if you’re not.

Perhaps I thought that too obvious to mention. Maybe I should not have assumed that the OP would figure a penalty would only follow a conviction but I do think it would be fair to do so.

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 14:31
Post #1325202

QUOTE (superSmiffy @ Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 10:49) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 08:55) *
QUOTE (superSmiffy @ Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 08:46) *
The decision is returned with reasons then the penalty is decided.

If you’re convicted! Obviously no penalty if you’re not.

Perhaps I thought that too obvious to mention. Maybe I should not have assumed that the OP would figure a penalty would only follow a conviction but I do think it would be fair to do so.

We get all sorts.

Posted by: Churchmouse Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 23:10
Post #1325294

QUOTE (creesteN @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 16:31) *
QUOTE (superSmiffy @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 09:28) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 09:14) *
QUOTE (superSmiffy @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 08:04) *
One of the issues with raised characters is not the font being incorrect but that the material used to create the font is reflective, some are retroreflectice and both are proscribed.

The characters that fake the look of 3D text are also proscribed because they are made of characters that have more than one stroke, i.e. they have black and grey and sometimes no colour sections within the character. This also makes the characters less recognisable to a camera, especially illuminated IR because the characters appear with less of the character being non-reflective.

Raised characters are allowed but they must be non-reflective and they often are not.


I have a message from the supplier saying "we don't make our registration plates that way. The letters are not reflective.". And I also have a photo where the plate bounces light back but not the lettering.

That's good then.
Did you ever put a picture of your plate on? Part of it would hide your ID of course.

If you mean the photograph where the light bounces, I can do so as soon as I get back home tonight. I'll do it ASAP.

QUOTE (samthecat @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 10:26) *
Are you in possession of the officers statement and can you post it on here (with personal details redacted)?

I may have missed something but was the issue not originally to do with the location of your number plate rather than its construction?


"On ... at ... a vehicle, namely ... VRM ..., on a road namely, ...., when the registration mark required to be fixed on the front and rear of the vehicle failed to comply with the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 in that the plate was pressed metal with raised lettering on both the front and rear of the vehicle, no supporting documentation to suggest plate has been tested against British standard BS AU 145d. Contrary to section 59(1) of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994."

This was written in the case on my court summons. I have some other documents somewhere at home with other statements, witness statement (second officer), and descriptions. They all seem to mention the same thing.

The issue was never with the location. It was mainly the fact that it is "non-standard", as the officer said in many locations and that the letters are "raised".

I would say that the "supporting documentation" is the "BS AU 145d" marking on the plate itself--which is exactly the same as the "supporting documentation" supplied with every other conforming number plate sold in the UK. I don't recall being provided with any such documentation when buying cheap and nasty plastic number plates from Halfords, for example.

In any case, there isn't a requirement to supply "supporting documentation" in VERA 1994 sections 59(1), 42, 27A or 23. The number plate simply must comply with the regulations issued by the Secretary of State (the aforementioned Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001), so in order to convict you it must be proved that your number plates failed to comply. The police do not appear to have offered any evidence of non-compliance. Just that the plates were made of pressed metal with raised lettering--facts that are not in dispute and do not indicate non-compliance with the regulation. Do you have a copy of the regulation? Download it from the Internet. Bring it with you.

The regulation includes a number of requirements for number plates, including "11.—(1) No reflex-reflecting material may be applied to any part of a registration plate and the plate must not be treated in such a way that the characters of the registration mark become, or are caused to act as, retroreflective characters", but you have stated that the numbers are not reflective at all (which would be exactly as expected--neither are mine).

Part 1 of Schedule 2 applies:

QUOTE
1. The plate must be made of retroreflecting material which, as regards its construction, colour and other qualities, complies with the requirements of—
(a) the British Standard specification for retroreflecting number plates published on 15 January 1998 under number BS AU 145d(a), or
(b) any other relevant standard or specification recognised for use in an EEA State and which, when in use, offers a performance equivalent to that offered by a plate complying with the British Standard specification,

and which, in either case, is marked with the number (or such other information as is necessary to permit identification) of that standard or specification.

Again, pressed metal plates like mine are just as retroreflective as plastic plates, so where is the evidence showing that yours do not meet this requirement? If it were me, I would bring the plates with me. Anyone who understands the meaning of "retroreflective" could see that mine are retroreflective.

But it's a court, so you never know how it will go. Good luck.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: creesteN Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 19:22
Post #1325432

Many thanks. Multiple have suggested now that I bring a plate in. Shall I order one? Is there any advantage of doing this? I don't want to hinder my chances and I don't see how that would help over normal photographs.

Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 19:43
Post #1325439

QUOTE (creesteN @ Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 20:22) *
Many thanks. Multiple have suggested now that I bring a plate in. Shall I order one? Is there any advantage of doing this? I don't want to hinder my chances and I don't see how that would help over normal photographs.


If you are going to take a plate with you, take one off the car (put a new one on that or car parked off road).
There is no point taking a representative plate to court, take one that is in question.

This isn't my area of expertise by any means but I would be prepared with a plate, with the relevant legislation and a bullet list of how the plate complies.
Tick each requirement off against your plate.
And really wanting to ask the police what doesn't comply.
And photos of the plate on the car from all angles.... just in case police try to make this into position issue.

Posted by: baroudeur Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 16:48
Post #1325599

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 00:10) *
I would say that the "supporting documentation" is the "BS AU 145d" marking on the plate itself--which is exactly the same as the "supporting documentation" supplied with every other conforming number plate sold in the UK. I don't recall being provided with any such documentation when buying cheap and nasty plastic number plates from Halfords, for example.


Churchmouse




If a person/company marks a plate with BS AU145d they must, if required, be able to confirm that approval tests have been passed otherwise anybody could make such a claim whether it was true or not. Whether the supplier in this case can do so is not known.

The major plate component suppliers mark their blank plates with their name and BS AU145d and this is a virtual guarantee of compliance.

Example of how a plate should look http://http://tinyurl.com/kt9cj8e

It appears that none of the major plate component suppliers lists blank metal plates which begs the question, why not ?.

Interesting reading here from the manufacturers' body the BNPA . https://www.bnma.org/faqs.html

And to throw another pebble into the pond...

Plates can be made to any other specification that matches or exceeds the BS AU 145d providing it carries an appropriate marking.




Posted by: Churchmouse Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 22:40
Post #1325695

QUOTE (baroudeur @ Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 17:48) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 00:10) *
I would say that the "supporting documentation" is the "BS AU 145d" marking on the plate itself--which is exactly the same as the "supporting documentation" supplied with every other conforming number plate sold in the UK. I don't recall being provided with any such documentation when buying cheap and nasty plastic number plates from Halfords, for example.


Churchmouse




If a person/company marks a plate with BS AU145d they must, if required, be able to confirm that approval tests have been passed otherwise anybody could make such a claim whether it was true or not. Whether the supplier in this case can do so is not known.

The major plate component suppliers mark their blank plates with their name and BS AU145d and this is a virtual guarantee of compliance.

Example of how a plate should look http://http://tinyurl.com/kt9cj8e

It appears that none of the major plate component suppliers lists blank metal plates which begs the question, why not ?.

Interesting reading here from the manufacturers' body the BNPA . https://www.bnma.org/faqs.html

And to throw another pebble into the pond...

Plates can be made to any other specification that matches or exceeds the BS AU 145d providing it carries an appropriate marking.







The issue here is the plate, not the supplier. If the police wanted to prosecute the supplier, they would still have to prove that the plates it had supplied did not meet the standard--something they do not appear able to do.

Why don't the "major plate component suppliers" offer pressed metal number plates? (It doesn't "beg the question", it prompts it...) I have no idea which suppliers you mean, but Halfords, for example, don't offer them and I'd guess it has something to do with having to set up 450+ shops with completely new tooling and supplies. Or maybe they just enjoy re-making ugly plastic plates, which are constantly degrading and de-laminating and generally looking like crap?

--Churchmouse

Posted by: creesteN Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 23:21
Post #1325709

Just ordered a second plate to show in court in person. Can I raise this as one of the expenses to be covered by the police if the court case is won? How do I prove my traveling costs (will be using my own car and uber). I don't want to pay a penny as they're the ones wasting my time. I get the chance to raise these things after judgment is made, correct?

QUOTE
And photos of the plate on the car from all angles.... just in case police try to make this into position issue.


Can they raise issues in court which haven't been presented to me beforehand? If yes, how was I supposed to prepare a defense? I enquired multiple times and they could never explain what the issue was apart from the plate lettering and it being non-standard.

Another question is; if the officer made no measurements and has therefore no evidence of this; is this even considerable?

Posted by: bill w Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 00:32
Post #1325712

QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 00:21) *
Just ordered a second plate to show in court in person.


Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the whole idea of a second plate was to fix it to your car so you didn't get done for not displaying a plate when took the original plate into the courtroom.

Bill

Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 08:39
Post #1325743

QUOTE (bill w @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 01:32) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 00:21) *
Just ordered a second plate to show in court in person.


Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the whole idea of a second plate was to fix it to your car so you didn't get done for not displaying a plate when took the original plate into the courtroom.

Bill


Would have thought so.
There is a big difference between "This is the plate that was on my car on the day, may I point out to the court......?" AU marks, reflective/non reflective etc
And, "This is a perfectly legal plate that has never been on my car....."

Re photos of the position etc.
While they may not have stated this is the problem, what they have stated could conceivably cover a multitude of sins.
As a boy scout, my motto was be prepared.
I would rather have a dozen photos and some sketches giving positional dimensions, viewing angle etc in my file and not use it, then be floundering asking for a postponement while I gather evidence.

Re costs.
My understanding is that any reasonable cost incurred can be claimed from the other side.
The court will decide if reasonable and the few quid on a new plate doesn't seem like taking the pee to me.
Can't say if a court will agree is reasonable or not but don't ask, don't get.
Concentrate on defence not costs though.
They only come into the equation at the end IF not guilty

Posted by: creesteN Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 09:01
Post #1325746

QUOTE (bill w @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 01:32) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 00:21) *
Just ordered a second plate to show in court in person.


Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the whole idea of a second plate was to fix it to your car so you didn't get done for not displaying a plate when took the original plate into the courtroom.

Bill


My original plate has been damaged ever since. I don't see the issue if the two will be identical.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 09:05
Post #1325748

Creeste - TAKE THE PLATE IN, the original one. the second one you put ON Your vehicle while the plate youre taking in with you is off your car. Take receipts in as you had to get another so you would remain legal while showing your cars plates to them.
Proving costs - parking, take receipt in, show time off for work (you can possibly get some of that, including for holiday time, but I normlaly look at civil cases, not criminal) and for travel, start and end at 45p per mile, Uber well you will have receipts again.

Posted by: creesteN Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 09:10
Post #1325749

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:05) *
Creeste - TAKE THE PLATE IN, the original one. the second one you put ON Your vehicle while the plate youre taking in with you is off your car. Take receipts in as you had to get another so you would remain legal while showing your cars plates to them.
Proving costs - parking, take receipt in, show time off for work (you can possibly get some of that, including for holiday time, but I normlaly look at civil cases, not criminal) and for travel, start and end at 45p per mile, Uber well you will have receipts again.


It's slightly damaged and deteriorated. Markings are not visible on it anymore. I don't think it would help my case at all.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 09:43
Post #1325758

Its still the actual plate in question, and the one they have to prove is not conformant.
Id take that plus all the docs you can show from the site e.g. their confirmaiton it meets, that the new plate you fitted meets, etc....

Posted by: creesteN Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 09:49
Post #1325760

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:43) *
Its still the actual plate in question, and the one they have to prove is not conformant.
Id take that plus all the docs you can show from the site e.g. their confirmaiton it meets, that the new plate you fitted meets, etc....


If I bring a physical plate in and show the fact that BS AU markings are worn off and not visible after these many months, isn't that hindering my own chances to win? I don't see how that helps sad.gif

Would a message from the supplier confirming the plate I just ordered is exactly the same as the one ordered almost a year ago be of any use?

Thank you for your help!

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 09:56
Post #1325763

My job is to be professionally sceptical, so my answer would be "no", by itself.
The actual plate, with pictures of the new replacement plate fitted to your vehicle from MANY angles close in and far off,, alongside documents showing the original purchase, the new one, that they are the same (either confirmation from website or obvious e.g. the stock numbers are the same), that the new one still shows the markings, that the website makes claims as to conformance etc etc

Youre building a picture to prove your plate is compliant, on the balance of probabilities as I believe that is sufficient to overturn the reasonable doubt proof requirement the police will have. Of course, I would love to know HOW they are proving it is non compliant, as that does not seem to have been disclosed.

Posted by: creesteN Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:00
Post #1325764

QUOTE (Slick @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:56) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:10) *
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:05) *
Creeste - TAKE THE PLATE IN, the original one. the second one you put ON Your vehicle while the plate youre taking in with you is off your car. Take receipts in as you had to get another so you would remain legal while showing your cars plates to them.
Proving costs - parking, take receipt in, show time off for work (you can possibly get some of that, including for holiday time, but I normlaly look at civil cases, not criminal) and for travel, start and end at 45p per mile, Uber well you will have receipts again.


It's slightly damaged and deteriorated. Markings are not visible on it anymore. I don't think it would help my case at all.


just pay the fine


Great input. Thanks.

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:56) *
My job is to be professionally sceptical, so my answer would be "no", by itself.
The actual plate, with pictures of the new replacement plate fitted to your vehicle from MANY angles close in and far off,, alongside documents showing the original purchase, the new one, that they are the same (either confirmation from website or obvious e.g. the stock numbers are the same), that the new one still shows the markings, that the website makes claims as to conformance etc etc

Youre building a picture to prove your plate is compliant, on the balance of probabilities as I believe that is sufficient to overturn the reasonable doubt proof requirement the police will have. Of course, I would love to know HOW they are proving it is non compliant, as that does not seem to have been disclosed.


Thank you nosferatu. I appreciate your help.

Posted by: bill w Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:23
Post #1325769

I appreciate it's more expense and hassle, but what about getting a locally made plastic plate from an over-the-counter licensed maker.
Fit that to your car temporarily, so there's no argument about illegality of either the plate or that there's one missing during the court case.

Take both new and old metal plates into court; point out yourself that it has, since the original incident, become damaged/degraded and that this is an identical plate ready to be fitted should the court agree with you that it is legal.

You do still have your photos of the original plate, in situ, printed and ready in your court bundle don't you?
If so this should support your case that the details were legible at the time of the alleged incident, and the mags can examine a new plate first hand. After all, you are trying to be helpful aren't you?

This comment is from a layman with no court experience, so others may wish to tell me I'm typing codswallop.
Regards
Bill

Posted by: 666 Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:23
Post #1325770

QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:49) *
If I bring a physical plate in and show the fact that BS AU markings are worn off and not visible after these many months, isn't that hindering my own chances to win? I don't see how that helps sad.gif


Forgive me if this has already been raised, but life is too short to read the whole 12 pages again.

In the OP you said "When I question the officer as to why I'm getting the ticket, I get the response: "VRM not conforming". I ask him to be more specific, he says - I have no stamps with BS, postcodes, etc. I tell him to check again, he comes back telling me they're not visible."

From what you're now saying, it seems the officer was right.


Posted by: creesteN Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:30
Post #1325772

QUOTE (666 @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 11:23) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:49) *
If I bring a physical plate in and show the fact that BS AU markings are worn off and not visible after these many months, isn't that hindering my own chances to win? I don't see how that helps sad.gif


Forgive me if this has already been raised, but life is too short to read the whole 12 pages again.

In the OP you said "When I question the officer as to why I'm getting the ticket, I get the response: "VRM not conforming". I ask him to be more specific, he says - I have no stamps with BS, postcodes, etc. I tell him to check again, he comes back telling me they're not visible."

From what you're now saying, it seems the officer was right.


No I haven't. The offense dates back to the day of the ticket, which was more than 6 months ago now. The plate was brand new then. The fact that the plate is damaged now has nothing to do with this. You can see this from the photographs on the first pages.

Posted by: samthecat Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:49
Post #1325777

Take these challenges to your version of events as a good indication of what you could be asked at court.

If you still have the original plate take it in and explain how it was damaged and why it no longer shows the required markings, if you have a new plate to identical specifications and evidence to show this is the case then take it in as well. This will back up your photographs taken at the time.

IMO just taking the new plate in is irrelevant without some additional evidence for context.

Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 11:00
Post #1325782

QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 11:30) *
QUOTE (666 @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 11:23) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:49) *
If I bring a physical plate in and show the fact that BS AU markings are worn off and not visible after these many months, isn't that hindering my own chances to win? I don't see how that helps sad.gif


Forgive me if this has already been raised, but life is too short to read the whole 12 pages again.

In the OP you said "When I question the officer as to why I'm getting the ticket, I get the response: "VRM not conforming". I ask him to be more specific, he says - I have no stamps with BS, postcodes, etc. I tell him to check again, he comes back telling me they're not visible."

From what you're now saying, it seems the officer was right.


No I haven't. The offense dates back to the day of the ticket, which was more than 6 months ago now. The plate was brand new then. The fact that the plate is damaged now has nothing to do with this. You can see this from the photographs on the first pages.


Again, have those pics and anything else to fill any gaps or queries in the file you take with you.
Neatly tabbed and easy to find items.
Better to have and not to use then to fall foul of magistrates who have zero history and will not see the whole picture unless you show and tell.

Posted by: creesteN Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 11:13
Post #1325784

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 12:00) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 11:30) *
QUOTE (666 @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 11:23) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:49) *
If I bring a physical plate in and show the fact that BS AU markings are worn off and not visible after these many months, isn't that hindering my own chances to win? I don't see how that helps sad.gif


Forgive me if this has already been raised, but life is too short to read the whole 12 pages again.

In the OP you said "When I question the officer as to why I'm getting the ticket, I get the response: "VRM not conforming". I ask him to be more specific, he says - I have no stamps with BS, postcodes, etc. I tell him to check again, he comes back telling me they're not visible."

From what you're now saying, it seems the officer was right.


No I haven't. The offense dates back to the day of the ticket, which was more than 6 months ago now. The plate was brand new then. The fact that the plate is damaged now has nothing to do with this. You can see this from the photographs on the first pages.


Again, have those pics and anything else to fill any gaps or queries in the file you take with you.
Neatly tabbed and easy to find items.
Better to have and not to use then to fall foul of magistrates who have zero history and will not see the whole picture unless you show and tell.


Sure. I'll do that. Much thanks for your help too, this is a relatively new (and really stressful) experience for me.

If at the time of the offense the plate was brand new, and I'm bringing an essentially brand new plate with me; I don't think a difference can be even told though. I will bring both, however!

The markings were damaged by a strong chemical, which is why I wasn't convinced whether I should or not. Thank you once again though. That clarifies everything.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 12:37
Post #1325822

You bring both, as told. One is the ACTUAL plate in question, one IS NOT the actual plate. Which do you think is MOST important?

You state HOW the new plate has become damaged, WHEN it became damaged, and have you photos from X date, Y days after the police pulled you showing the markings were visible.

Quite frankly surely, if the markings are no longer viisble, then you nee d anew plate anyway...?

Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 13:43
Post #1325844

I think you've now committed to buying a third plate for when the car is parked with original and new tucked into your briefcase at court.
Doesn't have to be an expensive one, just legal.

Posted by: creesteN Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 14:58
Post #1325867

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 14:43) *
I think you've now committed to buying a third plate for when the car is parked with original and new tucked into your briefcase at court.
Doesn't have to be an expensive one, just legal.


I still have the original acrylic one in the car.

Also would bringing a new one (but exactly identical one) in as proof without mentioning it's brand new, make any difference?

Posted by: AntonyMMM Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 15:11
Post #1325869

QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 12:13) *
The markings were damaged by a strong chemical, which is why I wasn't convinced whether I should or not.

accidentally or on purpose, when and why ? ..... no doubt something you may get asked about in court

QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 15:58) *
Also would bringing a new one (but exactly identical one) in as proof without mentioning it's brand new, make any difference?

What do you think ...?

Posted by: baroudeur Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 15:21
Post #1325875

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 23:40) *
The issue here is the plate, not the supplier. If the police wanted to prosecute the supplier, they would still have to prove that the plates it had supplied did not meet the standard--something they do not appear able to do.


--Churchmouse


The police initially prosecute the user not the supplier. Whether, in this case, they can prove these plates were non-compliant remains to be seen. There were over 2000 successful prosecutions of drivers with "illegal" plates (mainly font and spacing) in the last three years but only two for supplying such plates.

If plates are purchased from a DVLA approved supplier (which it seems they were in this case) the buyer has every right to expect that the plates are compliant with BS AU145d and the supplier should be called as a witness to provide evidence to confirm it.

The situation where the plate (one or both?) has sustained damage severe enough to obliterate the BS marking is rather unfortunate.

It will be interesting to see how this prosecution plays out. Should the OP lose it could be a rather expensive new set of plates.




Posted by: creesteN Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 15:38
Post #1325880

QUOTE (AntonyMMM @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 16:11) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 12:13) *
The markings were damaged by a strong chemical, which is why I wasn't convinced whether I should or not.

accidentally or on purpose, when and why ? ..... no doubt something you may get asked about in court

QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 15:58) *
Also would bringing a new one (but exactly identical one) in as proof without mentioning it's brand new, make any difference?

What do you think ...?


Accidentally. Cheap car wash used some acidic chemical so the black dye of some sort in the engravement of the letters got dissolved away. This was MONTHS AFTER I got ticketed.

I think it makes no difference whether it's a new one or the same one. I don't understand why the fact that there is no BS AU mark on there now makes a difference if at the time of the incident I had everything needed to stay legal which is proven by photographs and proof that the police holds?

Why am I expected to hold the registration plate so many months after and risk another ticket? Most people's reaction would be to throw it to the bin.

Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 16:30
Post #1325889

Bringing in a plate that was not attached to the car (ever) and was made months after the fact is likely to be challenged and ruled inadmissible due to it not being relevant to the case at hand. This seems to be turning into a farce. Just produce your photographs that were taken near to the relevant time and exhibit them via a witness statement served on the prosecutor well in advance.

Posted by: baggins1234 Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 16:31
Post #1325891

QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 16:38) *
Why am I expected to hold the registration plate so many months after and risk another ticket? Most people's reaction would be to throw it to the bin.


Because it’s evidence... original evidence... best evidence....just accept that fact...... you’re being given good advice.... take it

Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 16:33
Post #1325892

QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 17:31) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 16:38) *
Why am I expected to hold the registration plate so many months after and risk another ticket? Most people's reaction would be to throw it to the bin.


Because it’s evidence... original evidence... best evidence....just accept that fact...... you’re being given good advice.... take it

The best evidence is the photos taken at the time.

Posted by: Churchmouse Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 17:48
Post #1325915

QUOTE (creesteN @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:57) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 16:48) *
Let's see pictures of the plate.

Either it conforms to regulations, or it doesn't. What makes you think BS mark and maker's postcode does not have to be present?


They have to be present. And they are. The policeman thought they weren't. His reason then was that they are not visible. I never seen a requirement to have BS marks and postcodes 'visible' on a plate.

For the sake of privacy I have blanked out one letter.










I can't really understand why (a) the police officer couldn't see those markings or (b) how those markings could have become totally invisible, given that they appear to be stamped into the white plastic coating (if not into the metal plate itself), but if the photographs above depict the front number plate at the time of the "offense", I agree with SP, bring the photographs, not the plates that somehow no longer display the required information, nor some other plates that were not on the car at the time. You risk confusing things if you do.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: Jlc Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 18:18
Post #1325923

+1

And that supplier was on the 'approved' list of makers - I'm sure the confirmation was earlier in this thread.

Posted by: creesteN Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 19:45
Post #1325949

QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 19:18) *
+1

And that supplier was on the 'approved' list of makers - I'm sure the confirmation was earlier in this thread.


He is indeed. On the government website and he's also DVLA approved.

Posted by: David_R Tue, 24 Oct 2017 - 10:07
Post #1326071

Just read this thread from the beginning, and have a couple of comments to make, as some of the latest comments do not take into account some of the early pages.

*The occifer appears to have had an issue with you having a metal plate with raised letters on it. He identified it as "not standard" which is correct, but that does not make it automatically unlawful. This is a reasonable point to make, then backed up by the (excellent) advice you have had from others relating to the requirements of BS AU 145d. Do not attack the officer in court, simply point out why you believe you are not guilty of the offence laid out. Police officers are human and make mistakes. They also cannot be expected to know every single line of every piece of legislation. If this officer has made an error, going to court is how you identify that error and have the situation rectified.

*The occifer has NOT mentioned anything about visibility angles. Do not bring this up in court. The court will only consider what has been put before them, which is very specific. (for which you seem to have a fairly good defence)

*The whole thing about taking your plate in to the courtroom would have been an interesting thing to do, but as it is damaged, just do not bother. You have excellent photographs of the plate in question from the time in question. Use these. Make sure they are NOT the blanked out versions, but the original ones from the phone/camera. If they are dated, even better. (which will likely be in the exif information of the file)

*You're clearly having concerns about your day in court. Understandably, as it's quite an odd environment if you have zero experience of it. My advice to you would be to go and sit in the public gallery of a local Magistrates court that is hearing motoring offences. Turn up well dressed and ask the clerk of the court which court is hearing minor motoring offences (not things like drink-driving etc) and ask them which seats are the public gallery (It's not always obvious.. can just be a row of chairs at one side) Even better if you can go to the court in question. Sit there for a morning, and see how things work, who speaks when, what you should and should not say, and how to conduct yourself. This will teach you lots about making sure you sit/stand/speak at the right time and you will then be able to focus on the case rather than the new experience of being in a courtroom on your day.


As a completely personal opinion, on which you should place no bearing whatsoever, I think you have a fairly good chance of winning this, and I would have taken it to court too.

Posted by: creesteN Tue, 24 Oct 2017 - 10:42
Post #1326081

QUOTE (David_R @ Tue, 24 Oct 2017 - 11:07) *
Just read this thread from the beginning, and have a couple of comments to make, as some of the latest comments do not take into account some of the early pages.

*The occifer appears to have had an issue with you having a metal plate with raised letters on it. He identified it as "not standard" which is correct, but that does not make it automatically unlawful. This is a reasonable point to make, then backed up by the (excellent) advice you have had from others relating to the requirements of BS AU 145d. Do not attack the officer in court, simply point out why you believe you are not guilty of the offence laid out. Police officers are human and make mistakes. They also cannot be expected to know every single line of every piece of legislation. If this officer has made an error, going to court is how you identify that error and have the situation rectified.

*The occifer has NOT mentioned anything about visibility angles. Do not bring this up in court. The court will only consider what has been put before them, which is very specific. (for which you seem to have a fairly good defence)

*The whole thing about taking your plate in to the courtroom would have been an interesting thing to do, but as it is damaged, just do not bother. You have excellent photographs of the plate in question from the time in question. Use these. Make sure they are NOT the blanked out versions, but the original ones from the phone/camera. If they are dated, even better. (which will likely be in the exif information of the file)

*You're clearly having concerns about your day in court. Understandably, as it's quite an odd environment if you have zero experience of it. My advice to you would be to go and sit in the public gallery of a local Magistrates court that is hearing motoring offences. Turn up well dressed and ask the clerk of the court which court is hearing minor motoring offences (not things like drink-driving etc) and ask them which seats are the public gallery (It's not always obvious.. can just be a row of chairs at one side) Even better if you can go to the court in question. Sit there for a morning, and see how things work, who speaks when, what you should and should not say, and how to conduct yourself. This will teach you lots about making sure you sit/stand/speak at the right time and you will then be able to focus on the case rather than the new experience of being in a courtroom on your day.


As a completely personal opinion, on which you should place no bearing whatsoever, I think you have a fairly good chance of winning this, and I would have taken it to court too.


With most respect, thank you.

Posted by: creesteN Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 20:37
Post #1326591

DVLA has responded to my enquiry!

QUOTE
The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 specify the font, colouring and character size that number plates must comply with. They also refer to the British Standard for Retroreflecting Number Plates (BS AU 145d) that number plates must conform to.

I can confirm that there is nothing in the British Standard for Retroreflecting Number Plates (BS AU 145d) or in the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 that specifically excludes metal plates. They are acceptable providing that the number plates are compliant with the other requirements as stipulated in law.

It is for the individual to satisfy that the Regulations and British Standard are met. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) can only provide advice; ultimately it is a matter for the courts to decide on the legality of a number plate

I trust this clarifies matters for you.

Posted by: baroudeur Thu, 26 Oct 2017 - 16:51
Post #1326827

QUOTE (creesteN @ Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 21:37) *
DVLA has responded to my enquiry!

QUOTE
The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 specify the font, colouring and character size that number plates must comply with. They also refer to the British Standard for Retroreflecting Number Plates (BS AU 145d) that number plates must conform to.

I can confirm that there is nothing in the British Standard for Retroreflecting Number Plates (BS AU 145d) or in the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 that specifically excludes metal plates. They are acceptable providing that the number plates are compliant with the other requirements as stipulated in law.

It is for the individual to satisfy that the Regulations and British Standard are met. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) can only provide advice; ultimately it is a matter for the courts to decide on the legality of a number plate

I trust this clarifies matters for you.



The charge is...........

"On ... at ... a vehicle, namely ... VRM ..., on a road namely, ...., when the registration mark required to be fixed on the front and rear of the vehicle failed to comply with the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 in that the plate was pressed metal with raised lettering on both the front and rear of the vehicle, no supporting documentation to suggest plate has been tested against British standard BS AU 145d. Contrary to section 59(1) of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994."

Unless an example of this style of plate has been submitted for compliance testing such proof will not exist.
https://www.bikechatforums.com/files/bs_au_145d.pdf


Marking BS AU 145d on or in relation to a product represents a manufacturer's declaration of conformity, i.e. a claim by or on behalf
of the manufacturer that the product meets the requirements of the standard. The accuracy of the claim is solely the claimant's
responsibility. Such a declaration is not to be confused with third party certification of conformity, which might also be desirable.


In addition to the supplier's details there is a WG marking so does this indicate the component supplier which is a requirement of the standard?

The characters on a number plate are specified in The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 which inter alia states

(10) Paragraph (11) applies where—

(e) the plate is made of cast or pressed metal with raised characters.

Which indicates quite clearly that such plates are permitted so is the prosecution barking up the wrong tree?.

Posted by: IanJohnsonWS14 Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 08:00
Post #1327864

paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 appears to be the issue.

OP has admitted here that the plate was not marked with the BS number at the time of the offence so the plate does not comply. Doesn't matter if it was marked when it was made, at the time of the offence it wasn't marked so didn't comply.

The reason the marking is required to be on the plate is to avoid the very situation the OP is in. The police can see, by looking at the plate, if it complies. No marking means it does not comply.

Posted by: Fredd Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 08:20
Post #1327867

QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 08:00) *
OP has admitted here that the plate was not marked with the BS number at the time of the offence

The OP has admitted no such thing, and has provided pictures taken shortly after the offence (Post #4) that do show the markings.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 10:07
Post #1327897

QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 09:00) *
paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 appears to be the issue.

OP has admitted here that the plate was not marked with the BS number at the time of the offence so the plate does not comply. Doesn't matter if it was marked when it was made, at the time of the offence it wasn't marked so didn't comply.

The reason the marking is required to be on the plate is to avoid the very situation the OP is in. The police can see, by looking at the plate, if it complies. No marking means it does not comply.

Where has teh OP admitted that?

Posted by: roythebus Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 18:32
Post #1328036

About 3 pages ago.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 19:36
Post #1328053

Post numbers help

They admitted that NOW the numbers are illegible, however the photos show a a page or so back show the markings just fine.

Posted by: creesteN Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 20:18
Post #1328061

I don't recall saying that and no, that's also not correct. The markings were there at the time of purchase, at the time of being stopped by the Police Officer, and a long time after that.

On a side note, I'm gathering all the relevant documents and printing them out as we speak - the big day is near!

Posted by: IanJohnsonWS14 Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 08:43
Post #1328165

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 20:36) *
Post numbers help

They admitted that NOW the numbers are illegible, however the photos show a a page or so back show the markings just fine.



231, 233, 235.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 09:22
Post #1328174

Proving your previous comment wrong, well done.

Posted by: creesteN Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 09:40
Post #1328183

QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 09:43) *
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 20:36) *
Post numbers help

They admitted that NOW the numbers are illegible, however the photos show a a page or so back show the markings just fine.



231, 233, 235.


Reading with a slight bit of comprehension would help.

Posted by: Irksome Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 09:51
Post #1328192

QUOTE (creesteN @ Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 21:18) *
On a side note, I'm gathering all the relevant documents and printing them out as we speak - the big day is near!


When?

Posted by: disgrunt Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 09:51
Post #1328193

I think Ian’s comment was very helpful. He has shown how easy it is to confuse things. Do not mention that the plates got damaged. Some (but hopefully not all) magistrates are not the sharpest tools in the box.

I would keep the defence very simple, you bought from a dvla authorise supplier, the plate had the correct markings, the policeman is mistaken. HAs the prosecution provided any evidence beyond the policeman’s statement?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 13:58
Post #1328292

QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 09:43) *
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 20:36) *
Post numbers help

They admitted that NOW the numbers are illegible, however the photos show a a page or so back show the markings just fine.



231, 233, 235.

Markings are not visible on it anymore

they were visible at the time
they are not anymore

Posted by: creesteN Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 14:29
Post #1328301

QUOTE (Irksome @ Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 10:51) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 21:18) *
On a side note, I'm gathering all the relevant documents and printing them out as we speak - the big day is near!


When?


Sorry. I'd rather not say unless it makes a difference to anything.

Thank you @nosferatu and @disgrunt. Some people can't read it seems, but it's something I need to keep in mind.

At what point should I start mentioning the points from different legislations and so on? My understanding now is, they provide their prosecution first, then I present mine. And then decision is made? What if I miss out on important legislations at my attempt at speaking, will I get questioned and have the opportunity to discuss further, or how does it work?

Posted by: samthecat Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 16:36
Post #1328350

If you have time then go along to the court you will be attending and sit in on a few motoring cases (court ushers will be able to direct you to the right court room).

This will give you a feel for how things work better than a written description on here.

Posted by: Logician Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 16:58
Post #1328359

Just tell the ushers you want to observe in a traffic court.

Posted by: IanJohnsonWS14 Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 17:05
Post #1328363

QUOTE (creesteN @ Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 15:29) *
QUOTE (Irksome @ Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 10:51) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 21:18) *
On a side note, I'm gathering all the relevant documents and printing them out as we speak - the big day is near!


When?


Sorry. I'd rather not say unless it makes a difference to anything.

Thank you @nosferatu and @disgrunt. Some people can't read it seems, but it's something I need to keep in mind.

At what point should I start mentioning the points from different legislations and so on? My understanding now is, they provide their prosecution first, then I present mine. And then decision is made? What if I miss out on important legislations at my attempt at speaking, will I get questioned and have the opportunity to discuss further, or how does it work?


Take a sheet of paper with the list of points you want to cover written down in the order you want to cover them as an aide memoire - do not rely on memory.

Take a pen and tick them off as you cover them.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 18:47
Post #1328395

Have you asked that the prosecution witnesses attend or are you relying in the fact that the statements don't actually create an offence?

Posted by: creesteN Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 20:43
Post #1328411

QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 18:05) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 15:29) *
QUOTE (Irksome @ Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 10:51) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 21:18) *
On a side note, I'm gathering all the relevant documents and printing them out as we speak - the big day is near!


When?


Sorry. I'd rather not say unless it makes a difference to anything.

Thank you @nosferatu and @disgrunt. Some people can't read it seems, but it's something I need to keep in mind.

At what point should I start mentioning the points from different legislations and so on? My understanding now is, they provide their prosecution first, then I present mine. And then decision is made? What if I miss out on important legislations at my attempt at speaking, will I get questioned and have the opportunity to discuss further, or how does it work?


Take a sheet of paper with the list of points you want to cover written down in the order you want to cover them as an aide memoire - do not rely on memory.

Take a pen and tick them off as you cover them.


I know many points has been covered and I'm asking for a lot here, but would anyone be kind enough in what order (perhaps of importance?) should my points be made?


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 19:47) *
Have you asked that the prosecution witnesses attend or are you relying in the fact that the statements don't actually create an offence?



I haven't. I'm relying in the fact that statements don't actually contain an offense. I do have witnesses statements from the officer's side however. Should I?

Posted by: Logician Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 22:13
Post #1328422

Do the statements contain anything with which you disagree which is important, do they for instance state that there were no BS or postcode markings? If they do, then you need to call the officer concerned and put it to him that he is mistaken. Otherwise the statements will simply be accepted by the court.

Posted by: creesteN Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 22:55
Post #1328436

QUOTE (Logician @ Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 23:13) *
Do the statements contain anything with which you disagree which is important, do they for instance state that there were no BS or postcode markings? If they do, then you need to call the officer concerned and put it to him that he is mistaken. Otherwise the statements will simply be accepted by the court.


They state my rear plate was also pressed, which is incorrect. And obviously, that they don't comply with regulations (everything we discussed in the last 14 pages); which is what I disagree with of course. I presume that by "call the officer" you mean during trial when I get asked to do so?

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 23:13
Post #1328440

QUOTE (Logician @ Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 22:13) *
Do the statements contain anything with which you disagree which is important, do they for instance state that there were no BS or postcode markings? If they do, then you need to call the officer concerned and put it to him that he is mistaken. Otherwise the statements will simply be accepted by the court.


That's not strictly true. If the statement is admitted under s 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 it is simply admissible to the same extent as oral evidence. There's no requirement that it is believed. If an assertion made in the statement is demonstrably wrong then it should not be accepted.

QUOTE (creesteN @ Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 22:55) *
They state my rear plate was also pressed, which is incorrect. And obviously, that they don't comply with regulations (everything we discussed in the last 14 pages); which is what I disagree with of course. I presume that by "call the officer" you mean during trial when I get asked to do so?

No, you need to have objected to the statement not more than 7 days after it was served on you. If you don't then the officer won't be at court for you to call for. In any case, if you objected to his statement he would be called by the prosecution as their witness not by you as yours.

Posted by: creesteN Thu, 2 Nov 2017 - 15:45
Post #1328565

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 2 Nov 2017 - 00:13) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 22:13) *
Do the statements contain anything with which you disagree which is important, do they for instance state that there were no BS or postcode markings? If they do, then you need to call the officer concerned and put it to him that he is mistaken. Otherwise the statements will simply be accepted by the court.


That's not strictly true. If the statement is admitted under s 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 it is simply admissible to the same extent as oral evidence. There's no requirement that it is believed. If an assertion made in the statement is demonstrably wrong then it should not be accepted.

QUOTE (creesteN @ Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 22:55) *
They state my rear plate was also pressed, which is incorrect. And obviously, that they don't comply with regulations (everything we discussed in the last 14 pages); which is what I disagree with of course. I presume that by "call the officer" you mean during trial when I get asked to do so?

No, you need to have objected to the statement not more than 7 days after it was served on you. If you don't then the officer won't be at court for you to call for. In any case, if you objected to his statement he would be called by the prosecution as their witness not by you as yours.


As far as I remember I said I disagree with his statement, so that should be true.

Posted by: d123 Thu, 2 Nov 2017 - 21:21
Post #1328663

QUOTE (baroudeur @ Thu, 26 Oct 2017 - 17:51) *
The characters on a number plate are specified in The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 which inter alia states

(10) Paragraph (11) applies where—

(e) the plate is made of cast or pressed metal with raised characters.

Which indicates quite clearly that such plates are permitted so is the prosecution barking up the wrong tree?.


You seem to have taken that out of context, it applies to cars prior to 1/9/2001.

It’s probably a red herring and will just cause confusion in this case.

The section in full:

QUOTE
Size and spacing of characters

(10) Paragraph (11) applies where—
(a) one or both of the characters is “I” or “1”,
(b) those characters are either 79 millimetres or 89 millimetres high,
© the mark is displayed on a vehicle first registered before 1st September 2001,
(d) the registration plate displaying the mark was fixed to the vehicle before 1st September 2001 or, if that is not the case, the vehicle was first registered before 1st January 1973 and,
(e) the plate is made of cast or pressed metal with raised characters.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/561/pdfs/uksi_20010561_en.pdf

Posted by: creesteN Fri, 3 Nov 2017 - 00:12
Post #1328695

Could anyone suggest what points I should mention in order of importance? There's many great points raised in this thread, but I want to focus on the important bits.

I'm trying to quickly sketch a checklist for my case so I don't rely on memory.

Posted by: Churchmouse Fri, 3 Nov 2017 - 17:49
Post #1328867

In general, I would use the elements of the charge as a guideline. Read the charge and look at each part of it that the prosecution will need to prove. Then address each part separately, laying out your reasoning and evidence for each part in turn. Then sum up: they have failed to establish (a) and have failed to establish (b), thus you are not guilty of the offence. There's just the one charge, right? I'm afraid I don't know where in the 15 pages of this thread I saw it...

--Churchmouse

Posted by: baroudeur Sat, 4 Nov 2017 - 12:04
Post #1329040

QUOTE (d123 @ Thu, 2 Nov 2017 - 22:21) *
QUOTE (baroudeur @ Thu, 26 Oct 2017 - 17:51) *
The characters on a number plate are specified in The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 which inter alia states

(10) Paragraph (11) applies where—

(e) the plate is made of cast or pressed metal with raised characters.

Which indicates quite clearly that such plates are permitted so is the prosecution barking up the wrong tree?.


You seem to have taken that out of context, it applies to cars prior to 1/9/2001.

It’s probably a red herring and will just cause confusion in this case.

The section in full:

QUOTE
Size and spacing of characters

(10) Paragraph (11) applies where—
(a) one or both of the characters is “I” or “1”,
(b) those characters are either 79 millimetres or 89 millimetres high,
© the mark is displayed on a vehicle first registered before 1st September 2001,
(d) the registration plate displaying the mark was fixed to the vehicle before 1st September 2001 or, if that is not the case, the vehicle was first registered before 1st January 1973 and,
(e) the plate is made of cast or pressed metal with raised characters.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/561/pdfs/uksi_20010561_en.pdf


In which case it seems that raised characters are not permitted on vehicles registered after 2001 despite DVLA confirming that they believe they are..


Posted by: andy_foster Sat, 4 Nov 2017 - 19:37
Post #1329119

QUOTE (baroudeur @ Sat, 4 Nov 2017 - 12:04) *
In which case it seems that raised characters are not permitted on vehicles registered after 2001 despite DVLA confirming that they believe they are..


What legislation or other rule of law prohibits raised characters?

Posted by: Churchmouse Sat, 4 Nov 2017 - 20:07
Post #1329127

QUOTE (baroudeur @ Sat, 4 Nov 2017 - 12:04) *
QUOTE (d123 @ Thu, 2 Nov 2017 - 22:21) *
QUOTE (baroudeur @ Thu, 26 Oct 2017 - 17:51) *
The characters on a number plate are specified in The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 which inter alia states

(10) Paragraph (11) applies where—

(e) the plate is made of cast or pressed metal with raised characters.

Which indicates quite clearly that such plates are permitted so is the prosecution barking up the wrong tree?.


You seem to have taken that out of context, it applies to cars prior to 1/9/2001.

It’s probably a red herring and will just cause confusion in this case.

The section in full:

QUOTE
Size and spacing of characters

(10) Paragraph (11) applies where—
(a) one or both of the characters is “I” or “1”,
(b) those characters are either 79 millimetres or 89 millimetres high,
© the mark is displayed on a vehicle first registered before 1st September 2001,
(d) the registration plate displaying the mark was fixed to the vehicle before 1st September 2001 or, if that is not the case, the vehicle was first registered before 1st January 1973 and,
(e) the plate is made of cast or pressed metal with raised characters.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/561/pdfs/uksi_20010561_en.pdf


In which case it seems that raised characters are not permitted on vehicles registered after 2001 despite DVLA confirming that they believe they are..

No, it just means that paragraph 11 of the regulations does not apply. By the way, congratulations. sad.gif You've managed to exceed your usual standard of error by being completely wrong twice in the same thread regarding the same paragraph of the Regulations.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: creesteN Sun, 5 Nov 2017 - 13:37
Post #1329215

I want to bring a photograph of the plate being reflective. I have a few that overexpose the camera and the plate comes out completely white, and I have a few where I managed to get the letters (all down to my phone, really). Which ones will make more sense for the case?

Posted by: Logician Sun, 5 Nov 2017 - 17:17
Post #1329260

QUOTE (creesteN @ Sun, 5 Nov 2017 - 14:37) *
I want to bring a photograph of the plate being reflective. I have a few that overexpose the camera and the plate comes out completely white, and I have a few where I managed to get the letters (all down to my phone, really). Which ones will make more sense for the case?


I think you need one where the letters can be seen, otherwise how will the court know it is your plate not another? Also the supplier's letter says it is reflective does it not?


Posted by: Churchmouse Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 08:54
Post #1329324

It (and you) should say it is retroreflective, not reflective, as the language of the regulation requires the former. A retro reflector returns the light to where it came from, whereas a reflector simply bounces the light like a mirror.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: creesteN Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 16:35
Post #1329440

Case finished. I won and I owe this community a lot. So many thanks guys and girls. Officer has stated on my occassions that he is uncertain if the plate adhered to the regulations and that he is just used to the normal acrylic style. I proved my point that supporting documentation does not exist and that the plate is DVLA approved plus all the legislations regarding raised metal plates. I flooded them with information while the other party was unable to do anything, hence multiple times I had to leave the room for them to discuss their questions for me.

The CPS worker tried to accuse me of first buying plates from a supplier that's legal, but show plates. Then used dirty tactics against me.

In general, magistrates were confident with their choices and impressed by the law side of things. I was also refunded fuel at 45p a mile. Didnt ask for any other expenses.

Posted by: Jlc Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 16:48
Post #1329445

Well done - I'm still surprised this was allowed to progress as far as court.

Posted by: 666 Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 16:49
Post #1329446

Congratulations! And thanks for coming back to let us know.

Posted by: Logician Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 17:42
Post #1329472

Well done, you had the attention to detail and perseverance that were required to win the case, clearly the prosecution failed to have the detailed knowledge of the law that they needed to bring such a case, and in fact if they had they would have realised their case was flawed. Credit is also due to the magistrates who did not just take the line that the policeman must know best.

For a quiet life, I would now put an oblong plate in the standard position, but it's up to you, you have certainly proved your point.

Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 18:16
Post #1329485

Good. Case should never have been brought once you pointed out their errors.

Posted by: NewJudge Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 18:18
Post #1329486

Yes well done.

I've kept quiet on this one but when I saw your photos a few weeks ago I was surprised that you were not done for the positioning of your plate. There is a question on here somewhere in which I provided a diagram of the "visibility area" regs. I can't find it at the moment but you might do well to have a look at it and make sure your car complies. The Boys in Blue may smart from this defeat and may possibly be looking out for you. wink.gif

Posted by: creesteN Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 19:04
Post #1329499

QUOTE (NewJudge @ Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 19:18) *
Yes well done.

I've kept quiet on this one but when I saw your photos a few weeks ago I was surprised that you were not done for the positioning of your plate. There is a question on here somewhere in which I provided a diagram of the "visibility area" regs. I can't find it at the moment but you might do well to have a look at it and make sure your car complies. The Boys in Blue may smart from this defeat and may possibly be looking out for you. wink.gif


Considering they havent measured out the visibility area at all and say I have and bring a photo of the car from distance in court, I reckon I could convince the magistrates about this anyway

Posted by: peterguk Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 19:28
Post #1329506

QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 19:04) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 19:18) *
Yes well done.

I've kept quiet on this one but when I saw your photos a few weeks ago I was surprised that you were not done for the positioning of your plate. There is a question on here somewhere in which I provided a diagram of the "visibility area" regs. I can't find it at the moment but you might do well to have a look at it and make sure your car complies. The Boys in Blue may smart from this defeat and may possibly be looking out for you. wink.gif


Considering they havent measured out the visibility area at all and say I have and bring a photo of the car from distance in court, I reckon I could convince the magistrates about this anyway


I think NJ is referring to a separate stop in the future, not one based on the stop in this thread.

If you were charged with the specific offence (of visibilty) they would have to produce evidence to prove their case as would you. IMHO that would involve measured area and photos.


Posted by: NewJudge Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 19:29
Post #1329507

QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 19:04) *
Considering they havent measured out the visibility area at all and say I have and bring a photo of the car from distance in court, I reckon I could convince the magistrates about this anyway


It's not quite as simple as looking at the car from a distance. I think the issue was discussed in your thread round about the middle of March so you are aware of the regs which describe a rectangle drawn in front of the car where the number plate must be visible from every point within it. I think you should investigate those regs carefully because at a cursory glance I think you would struggle to meet the requirements. But, of course, it's up to you!

Posted by: creesteN Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 21:21
Post #1329544

QUOTE (NewJudge @ Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 20:29) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 19:04) *
Considering they havent measured out the visibility area at all and say I have and bring a photo of the car from distance in court, I reckon I could convince the magistrates about this anyway


It's not quite as simple as looking at the car from a distance. I think the issue was discussed in your thread round about the middle of March so you are aware of the regs which describe a rectangle drawn in front of the car where the number plate must be visible from every point within it. I think you should investigate those regs carefully because at a cursory glance I think you would struggle to meet the requirements. But, of course, it's up to you!


Sorry, I should have phrased my sentence better. The rectangle measurements is what I meant by a photo from distance. I was 100% sure the police officer made no measurements so once again it was a case of whatever evidence I provide against none of his.

Posted by: peterguk Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 21:47
Post #1329552

QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 21:21) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 20:29) *
QUOTE (creesteN @ Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 19:04) *
Considering they havent measured out the visibility area at all and say I have and bring a photo of the car from distance in court, I reckon I could convince the magistrates about this anyway


It's not quite as simple as looking at the car from a distance. I think the issue was discussed in your thread round about the middle of March so you are aware of the regs which describe a rectangle drawn in front of the car where the number plate must be visible from every point within it. I think you should investigate those regs carefully because at a cursory glance I think you would struggle to meet the requirements. But, of course, it's up to you!


Sorry, I should have phrased my sentence better. The rectangle measurements is what I meant by a photo from distance. I was 100% sure the police officer made no measurements so once again it was a case of whatever evidence I provide against none of his.


But that doesn't stop them choosing to do some measurements in the future. Hopefully your choice to be different won't result in more attention of the negative kind, although when you attract attention you can't always choose whether it's the attention you desire..

Posted by: NewJudge Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 22:47
Post #1329571

Yes I was thinking of a future pull rather than the previous one to which this thread refers.

Posted by: creesteN Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 23:56
Post #1329585

Considering my plate is damaged and I have a new one (also metal, pressed) ready to be fitted, I will place it elsewhere in a less "aggressive" location.

Once again many thanks guys. You not only saved my situation completely but also prepared me for future encounters of this kind.

Posted by: Churchmouse Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 13:25
Post #1329692

Congratulations! Unfortunately, despite the law and the facts (as far as I could tell) being on your side, there is no "sure thing" in a courtroom situation. You stood up for yourself and fought well, so in addition to the win, you now know a bit more about the system and won't be intimidated by it in the future.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: creesteN Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 16:41
Post #1329754

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 14:25) *
Congratulations! Unfortunately, despite the law and the facts (as far as I could tell) being on your side, there is no "sure thing" in a courtroom situation. You stood up for yourself and fought well, so in addition to the win, you now know a bit more about the system and won't be intimidated by it in the future.

--Churchmouse


Once again, many thanks to you as well as many others for some of the great advice I received here. Hopefully I'll be able to pass it on.

Posted by: baroudeur Wed, 8 Nov 2017 - 16:44
Post #1330048

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 4 Nov 2017 - 21:07) *
No, it just means that paragraph 11 of the regulations does not apply. By the way, congratulations. sad.gif You've managed to exceed your usual standard of error by being completely wrong twice in the same thread regarding the same paragraph of the Regulations.

--Churchmouse


I've been offline for a few days and just seen your very encouraging comments. unsure.gif

I believe that pressed/cast characters are permitted and was trying, unsuccessfully it seems, to support that view by quoting from the legislation in post 259. This was challenged as referring only to pre 2001 plates presumably because para 10d and 10e are linked by the "and" at the end of 10d.

My reply in post 285 was intended to imply that IF that if that was so then pressed/cast characters are not permitted on vehicles registered since 2001. Unfortunately, this was misinterpreted because of my poor wording.









Posted by: Churchmouse Wed, 8 Nov 2017 - 21:37
Post #1330150

QUOTE (baroudeur @ Wed, 8 Nov 2017 - 16:44) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 4 Nov 2017 - 21:07) *
No, it just means that paragraph 11 of the regulations does not apply. By the way, congratulations. sad.gif You've managed to exceed your usual standard of error by being completely wrong twice in the same thread regarding the same paragraph of the Regulations.

--Churchmouse


I've been offline for a few days and just seen your very encouraging comments. unsure.gif

I believe that pressed/cast characters are permitted and was trying, unsuccessfully it seems, to support that view by quoting from the legislation in post 259. This was challenged as referring only to pre 2001 plates presumably because para 10d and 10e are linked by the "and" at the end of 10d.

My reply in post 285 was intended to imply that IF that if that was so then pressed/cast characters are not permitted on vehicles registered since 2001. Unfortunately, this was misinterpreted because of my poor wording.

I was trying to "encourage" you to desist from whatever it is you thought you were doing with these comments in an active criminal case thread. I'm sorry if you considered my response harsh, but when the OP is in the midst of preparing for an imminent court appearance, in my view, it is not helpful to engage in uninformed, last-minute speculation about the (already clear) meaning of the relevant legislation. The section of the RV (DRM) Regulations 2001 you found so fascinating was clearly referring to pre-1973 black and silver number plates and related ONLY to the spacing between the characters on that particular style of number plate. That some specific requirements apply to a different style of plate on a pre-1973 vehicle had no bearing whatsoever on the OP's situation.

--Churchmouse

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)