Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Xde Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 08:50
Post #1572619

I was caught speeding yesterday evening, I was pulled over and the police officer was rather angry. However, my wife has a medical condition that causes violent seizures - her special injectable medicament was at home about two miles from where I was pulled. The officer sympathised and said he’d make a note.

It was the A50 near Stoke, dual carriageway speed restricted to 50 due to lane additions. The opposite side of the road was totalled packed for miles, on my side traffic was starting to build up behind me.

You will ask why I didn’t call an ambulance? The traffic being one reason, my being closer to home than the hospital, additionally ambulances do not carry the drug required to reverse the seizure.

I have no points, no speed awareness courses. Never been caught speeding in 25 years, or points.

I hope you can help.

Sorry, speed was 134mph; being reported for speeding and DWDCA. Police offer was going to do dangerous driving but said he’d make it DWDCA due to the circumstances.

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 09:13
Post #1572624

Given that excess (off the scale!) and the complicated medical reasons I think you should consider contacting a specialist motoring solicitor.

You may be looking at a defence of duress but you would have to show there was an imminent threat of death or serious injury.

Indeed, it is fortunate it's DWDCA as dangerous lifts it to a new level.

Posted by: 666 Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 09:21
Post #1572625

You were doing 134 and traffic was building up behind you? That makes no sense.

Posted by: Xde Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 09:43
Post #1572626

You may be looking at a defence of duress but you would have to show there was an imminent threat of death or serious injury.

I have live data tracking my wife’s condition, it clearly shows the seizure occurring. Specialist Nurse will write a letter explaining the data leading to being stopped.

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 11:11
Post #1572636

Any defence would need to establish that your actions where necessary because of an imminent threat as above.

An obvious question would be why you didn't carry the drug required as it was foreseeable?

Posted by: NewJudge Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 11:37
Post #1572639

I think any court considering "Special Reasons" will be interested to know just exactly what you expected to achieve to assist your wife by travelling at just under twice the legal speed limit and what you would have done had the violent seizure occurred whilst you were travelling at that speed. If you were two miles from home it would take you two minutes to reach there averaging 60mph, one minute at 120mph. They will also be keen to learn why, if the medication was so vital, you did not carry some with you. They may also consider that the consequences for you, your wife and those around you could have been horrendous. They may ask you why you did not consider stopping and caring for your wife in a more controlled environment. You will need to explain what you believed might have happened had you reached home a minute later and what actually did happen (presumably it took you much longer to reach home since you were stopped). None of this is being judgemental - I'm putting myself behind the Bench.

I wish you well with a Special Reasons argument. To have any chance of success I would agree that a specialist solicitor would be necessary. Even then I don't rate your chances very highly. Without a successful SR argument that speed would normally result in a ban of probably around three months.

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 11:43
Post #1572640

It seems 50mph was the prevailing limit so it's over 2x.

Of course, special reasons is not a defence.

https://www.fixedfeelawyer.co.uk/ fairly close by.

Posted by: NewJudge Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 11:58
Post #1572645

Thanks, I'd missed that. It makes a slight difference to my "time to reach home" calculation but a considerable difference to the sentencing in the event of a failed SR argument.

It would be interesting to see what you are charged with since you were warned for both speeding and Careless Driving. It could be argued that it would be perverse to charge you with both if the only element of the Careless Driving was excessive speed. From your description and bearing in mind the 50mph limit I think it is most unlikely that a court will find Special Reasons". There was obviously something being done to the road to require the lower limit and on your own admission there was a lot of traffic around. If you can convince the court that you believed your wife may well have died but for you trying to reach home quickly you might swing it. But if you really want them to believe that you will also have to explain why no medication was carried. Saying it was simply forgotten I think will not cut the mustard.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 12:03
Post #1572646

Let's establish the facts. Was your wife actually in the process of having a seizure?

If so, forget about duress of circumstances, as there might be a statutory defence under section 87(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984:

No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire and rescue authority, for ambulance purposes or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.

Much fanfare was made of the Road Safety Act 2006 that was going to limit the exemptions to people trained in the driving of vehicles at high speeds, but those provisions have still not come into force so if you can satisfy the court that you were using your car for ambulance purposes, the speed limits do not apply. I understand the purpose test to be on the balance of probabilities.

On the downside, if the officer's reaction was anything other than "oh s*it I'm going to drive you to hospital right now and we'll deal with your driving later", that suggests it wasn't that much of an emergency (but unlike duress of circumstances, the test is not one of a life and death emergency, so it may not be fatal to a successful defence).

So, was she actually having a seizure at the time? What are the possible / likely consequences of delayed treatment?

Posted by: Xde Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 15:07
Post #1572668

Let's establish the facts. Was your wife actually in the process of having a seizure?

Yes, she was in a deep seizure. She was violently thrashing her hands and legs, making incoherent noises and contorting her face.

Effects of delayed treatment can result in organ failure, neurological symptoms, low blood pressure and death. I’d like to point out I don’t say death lightly here, it’s a distinct possibility and it scares the hell out of me.

Regarding the medication, we’d actually been to the pharmacy to collect monthly prescriptions which includes the medication to reverse the seizure. However, they had no stock of this item and they had to order it in. We had one at home. When the monthly rx is collected she stores certain medicaments in the car, including this item.

The police said he was reporting me for excess speed and DWDC. However he also mentioned dangerous driving due to excessive speed, he seemed set on the DWDC but I wouldn’t be surprised if he reported it as DD.

When the police pulled me over, I called an ambulance, and they didn’t have the medication. They blue lighted and sirens , and took her to A&E where she was cared for.

Posted by: Logician Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 16:42
Post #1572687

A conviction for DD or DWDC based on speed alone is perhaps unlikely, otherwise if there are additional factors involved. Wilkinson's clearly disapproves of Scottish decisions to the contrary "Although the offence of driving at a speed dangerous to the public was abolished by s.50 Criminal Law Act 1977, the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland would appear to have come perilously close to recreating that offence in non-statutory form by its decision in Trippick v Orr (1994) 1995 SLT 272."

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 17:05
Post #1572692

So even despite what must have been a several minute delay it appears she was OK? That harms your necessity argument for doing that speed to get home a minute or two quicker somewhat.

Posted by: NewJudge Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 17:49
Post #1572697

Quite honestly, if you tell a court that you drove at 134mph with a passenger in that condition they may wonder whether your judgement is sound enough for you to be driving at all.

Posted by: Sparxy Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 18:05
Post #1572700

What drug does she need?

If it does go to court and you need special reasons not to endorse, you might be of benefit getting a letter from the local ambulance service and GP to explain that these medications are required, and not carried by the ambulance service local to you.

Airway problems (which can be managed by an ambulance crew) are always going to kill faster than an untreated seizure.

Posted by: mickR Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 18:59
Post #1572713

That was my thought!

Posted by: Xde Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 19:10
Post #1572715

The ambulance was called as soon as I pulled over, it arrived in under five minutes.

No, she was not “ok”, she was in a deep, violent, seizure. In seizures like this the chance of serious co-morbidities increases every minute and can lead to a stroke, heart problems, organ failure, and death.

Considering it took the ambulance five minutes to arrive, five minutes to get my wife in the ambulance, 10 minute drive to hospital, five minutes for booking in, she was taken to resus and medication administered within five minutes. If I hadn’t been pulled over I would have been home and administered the injection in around five minutes.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 19:20
Post #1572716

I think you have a viable defence to the speeding charge. Any idea why the police officer didn't offer to take her to hospital himself on blue and twos? I think in the circumstances you describe, what the officer did is very close to misconduct.

From the facts you've described, I think the section 87(1) defence is clearly engaged.

Posted by: baggins1234 Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 19:38
Post #1572721

Really?....go on...I’m intrigued.....

Posted by: NewJudge Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 19:47
Post #1572726

Possibly. If you had managed to remain in control at that speed with your passenger in such a state, that is.

When you first posted this I had no idea that your wife was in that condition. You need to speak to a solicitor if you are to present a SR argument. Whether he or she will be able to devise a way to get across to the court the seriousness of your situation without revealing what I believe a court will consider as a quite a high level of irresponsibility, I don't know. I know it's easy for me to seemingly criticise your actions with the benefit of just a few words from your description. But I'm not doing it to criticise; I'm doing it so that you can hopefully see how a court will view your actions. My view is that your wife displaying the symptoms you describe considerably aggravates your already serious speeding offence. It seemed she was seriously out of control and whether you should have continued driving even at legal speeds is very questionable.

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 20:12
Post #1572728

Is it a defence to DWDCA?

Posted by: NewJudge Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 20:16
Post #1572730

Are you suggesting the court will agree that the car was being used for "ambulance purposes"?

I think there may be a struggle. S87 is headed "Exemption of fire brigade, ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits." This indicates to me that the vehicle must be an "official" ambulance. There is a bit more which may reinforce that:

"Subsection (1) above [which provides the exemption] applies in relation to a vehicle that, although not being used for ambulance purposes, is being used for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service."

This would seem to suggest that an "unofficial" ambulance would enjoy the exemption only if it was responding to a request by the NHS ambulance service. I don't know if there is any case law but the statute by itself does not look promising.

If perchance that hurdle is crossed I think the OP must hope he is not also charged with Careless Driving. A careful and competent driver of a "genuine" emergency vehicle would, I suggest, not drive at 134mph in heavy traffic with a convulsing passenger by his side.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 20:40
Post #1572731

You know the answer to that already.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 21:01
Post #1572732

There is no such thing as an "official" ambulance, what counts is the purpose for which the vehicle is being used. If a police officer were to commandeer a civilian vehicle in a dire emergency, he wouldn't have to stick to 30 mph in the centre of town just because he happened not to be driving an "official" vehicle.


No, that provision was added to cover NHS first responder vehicles because it was identified in Director of Public Prosecutions v Issler & Anor [2014] EWHC 669 (Admin) that NHS first responder vehicles were technically illegal (see para 33). Its purpose is to grant the exemption to vehicles that are not ambulances as such but that are used to convey trained medical personnel to the location of an emergency. It is a seperate exemption, and has been granted only to vehicles that are acting at the request of the NHS, but it does not alter the original ambulance exemption.


Careless driving is a separate issue. It's certainly a lot less clear-cut than speeding. The OP will have to wait and see if both charges appear on the paperwork that will inevitably come through.

Posted by: NewJudge Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 21:21
Post #1572736

So if I stick a stirrup pump in the boot of my car and set off to extinguish my sister's bonfire which has got a bit out of hand, can I claim to be a "fire brigade vehicle" and thus exceed the speed limit? Yes, I'm being flippant. I get the example of a police officer commandeering a vehicle. But he is a police officer. The OP is not a paramedic. I think a Bench will take a bit of persuading.

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 27 Jun 2020 - 09:20
Post #1572756

I think the distinction between your example and the OP is that the OP can honestly claim his was a genuine life or death situation, and will presumably have medical evidence to back up his claim.

Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 27 Jun 2020 - 11:53
Post #1572790

I do. I’m curious as to why you’re advancing a defence in relation to speeding when he has been reported for DWDCA. I accept the offence proceeded with may change.

Posted by: andy_foster Sat, 27 Jun 2020 - 12:22
Post #1572804

IIRC the section heading is merely a guide to enable the appropriate section to be located more easily, it does not actually form part of the legislation.

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 27 Jun 2020 - 12:59
Post #1572816

The opening post indicates he's been reported for both, I'm pointing out that there appears to be a valid statutory defence to one of the offences he's been reported for.

Posted by: mdann52 Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 20:27
Post #1573067

Isn't there an argument the definition in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/22/schedule/2/paragraph/6 and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/3/made (under “Emergency vehicle”(b) likely relevant here, which seem to require an ambulance to be adapted to carry patients, as opposed to just any old vehicle with a patient in the back? For lack of any better definition under the law this seems to be at least relevant to the courts decision of the definition.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 20:36
Post #1573069

What would seem relevant to me is that you were pulled over, if a police officer saw your wife having a seizure surely an ambulance would have been called or they would have escorted you to you home to obtain the medicine. So what would the officers evidence likely be in that regard?

Posted by: 4hS6TcBkX Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 20:57
Post #1573071

If you read the remainder of the thread you'll see that an ambulance was called and his wife taken to hospital.

Posted by: Logician Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 00:01
Post #1573083

It would be rather a poor argument, it is not suggested that the OP's became an ambulance, and entitled to exemption from VED and to display blue lights, but that it was being used for an ambulance purpose, ie transporting a patient, which is what the section requires:

No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire and rescue authority, for ambulance purposes or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.

[/i]If the section was only intended to apply to ambulances it could simply have been said to apply to "an ambulance as defined by VERA 1984" instead it appears to have been deliberately drafted to apply to a wider range of vehicles.

Posted by: Durzel Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 15:28
Post #1573169

Would he be able to convince a bench that it was reasonable that they kept the only vial of this critical, potentially life saving medication at home, rather than having several caches of it for emergencies, in the car, in her handbag, in the OP's jacket or whatever?

I do wish the OP well, as it seems on the face of it that the prevailing circumstances were such that he felt compelled to do the speed he was doing. It is fair to say that the difference between doing 134mph and 50mph when you're two miles from home is measured in <3 minutes, but that's with a rational mind, and it's not as if you're going to slow down as you get to the last 2 miles, the inferrence is that the OP was doing this speed for considerably longer.

That being said having this vital medication at home and nowhere else, not having any surplus of it, for exactly this sort of critical event, doesn't inspire confidence in the defence.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 17:30
Post #1573182

As someone who suffers from a chronic condition I can tell you that, no matter how much you plan and keep spare supplies and whatnot, at some point sooner or later you end up getting caught out and need to rush home / to the pharmacy / to hospital.

Posted by: mickR Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 17:36
Post #1573183

Aiui some medication has to be kept refrigerated so not always possible to keep about your person.

Posted by: 4hS6TcBkX Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 18:19
Post #1573187

Although true, OP mentioned that they usually keep medication in the vehicle so this shouldn't be a problem.

However, as somebody correctly mentioned above though, you will inevitably encounter an event where you unfortunately don't have medication in the vehicle - as in this instance.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 18:22
Post #1573188

Being in the same boat i agree, and as an ambulance was called there may be strong mitigation but not IMO a defence

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 18:32
Post #1573191

Not a defence to what?

Posted by: roythebus Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 08:58
Post #1574130

With the medication issue, I'd suggest that such meds would be rather expensive and for the NHS to issue such quantities to cover emergencies would not be possible. The meds might also have a limited shelf life. I know with my prescription meds for a non-fatal stomach problem, the doctor cannot order me more than a month's supply at any time except in exceptional circumstances.

So that could be a reason the OP doesn't have a stock of it in the car/his pocket/wife's handbag.

But I must admit 134 is rather quick. The only time I've driven at much over the limit was when my first wife started having our first son on the way to hospital, but that was at 0300 on empty roads, and not much over 50 in a 30.

Posted by: Xde Mon, 27 Jul 2020 - 03:43
Post #1577086

I’m sorry I’ve not been back sooner, thanks to Covid.

The medication costs £720 a pop, has to be kept chilled (we carry an ice box in the car) and the lifetime of the medication is three months so it is difficult to establish surplus supply. We’d been to collect some prior to the seizure that day but the order was delayed, of course the one time it was needed there was none.

In terms of speed, I had been driving in excess of 120 for around ten minutes before being stopped.

I’ve taken some initial legal advice, the lawyer thinks I was using my vehicle as an ambulance but a bench could go either way. He also thinks they’ll dual-charge speeding and dangerous driving. If I was convicted of DD I am correct in thinking they can order a jail sentence, yes?

I have a print of live medical data from the day, a letter from my wife’s consultant stating the urgency of medical treatment and the rapid onset of very serious problems.

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 27 Jul 2020 - 05:12
Post #1577087

DD can result in a jail sentence, yes, however for the offences here that is NOT going to happen, it is however a 1 year disqualification.
Driving without due care and attention (careless driving) is much more likely to be charged than dangerous. IMO.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 27 Jul 2020 - 08:45
Post #1577120

I suggest you wait until paperwork comes in the post, there's no point in formulating strategies for every possible charging scenario.

Posted by: Xde Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 01:12
Post #1580780

Not good news, I’ve been reported for speeding and dangerous driving.

It’s time to instruct a specialist solicitor, isn’t it?

I did want to add information I’ve previously refrained from giving, my wife has sufffered irreparable renal damage from the delay of around 40 minutes from by being pulled over to ambulance, hospital, resus and medication administration. The risk of renal damage from my attempts to get home was close to 0%, not zero but distinctly unlikely and I can have a very senior, well respected, consultant indicate this and that, in her eyes, my attempts to get home rapidly to administer medication was justified, and also indicate the medication isn’t carried by ambulances (it’s very expensive and needs keeping under certain conditions, not that this should obviate the need). The consultant will also indicate, having been the consultant on the case for 25+ years that I have attended numerous training classes on condition management, detection of crises, administration of emergency medication and subsequent management, and that my level of knowledge is of a specialist nurse in these areas. I also have four healthcare related degrees, including a PhD.

I also wanted to clarify that I was two miles from home when pulled, I was approximately 10 miles away when the seizure began.

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 07:40
Post #1580786

Sorry to hear about your wife, you should consider a formal complaint about the officers perhaps failing in their duty of care by imposing an unnecessary delay, they could have escorted you home and then dealt with the matter of the offences.

Silver lining (not much) is that it aids your 'ambulance purposes' defence, although it doesn't assist with a dangerous driving charge.

You ideally need a solicitor that charges at legal aid rates (or not much over) so you aren't too far out of pocket.

Posted by: TMC Towcester Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 10:33
Post #1580810

vs the duty of care for the other road users at the time? Good luck with that.

Posted by: Logician Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 10:33
Post #1580811

I am very sorry to hear about your wife's condition. I do think you now need to instruct a specialist motoring solicitor, Bobby Bell has a good reputation here https://www.fixedfeelawyer.co.uk/

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 11:39
Post #1580832

Other road users are irrelevant once they have stopped the car. unless you suggest he would driver at 130 with the Police following him.

No I think there is a valid argument they did not discharge that duty if medication as at most 5 minutes away and they imposed a 40 minute delay.

Posted by: TMC Towcester Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 12:01
Post #1580838

Read the opening post.............there is no mention of ANY insistence about the urgency, reluctance from the police, unnecessary delays etc etc and the OP's Wife is thankfully well.

I know that road well and it's hazardous at the best of times.

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 12:38
Post #1580847

She was having a seizure, sounds urgent to me!

Posted by: NewJudge Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 12:50
Post #1580850

I think with Dangerous Driving now in the frame this has taken on a completely different hue. The S87(1) exemption does not apply to that charge nor to Careless Driving if it is charged as an alternative. I still believe what I said earlier - from the description provided it strikes me that continuing to drive at all with a passenger in that condition was extremely unwise. Continuing to drive at such a high speed where the limit was 50mph could easily be considered dangerous. I think that even a police officer trained in high speed pursuit and driving without a seriously ill passenger thrashing about beside him might have difficulty defending such action. Definitely a case for specialist advice.

Posted by: TMC Towcester Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 13:43
Post #1580856

...and two officers failed to notice or be even slightly concerned?

Right-o

Posted by: ohnoes Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 13:47
Post #1580859

Police would have almost certainly called an ambulance if they were made aware of a medical emergency upon stopping the vehicle.
Devils advocate: If the 40 minute delay was that life threatening why did OP not call an ambulance or insist on one attending whilst the police were dealing with him? Or was that what happened? Unclear from the above.

Posted by: 4hS6TcBkX Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 13:50
Post #1580861

OP stated above that the police did indeed call for an ambulance.

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 14:16
Post #1580868

40 minutes for an ambulance to take her to hospital to get the medication while 2 miles (no more than 5 minutes from home) for someone having a seizure there and then.

Even if the ambulance carried the drug it would take longer.

No that sounds like a failure to me. Just absolving themselves by calling an ambulance isn't always enough.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 14:22
Post #1580872

Perhaps the police could have escorted the OP of taken the wife themselves, i don't know. If they could or if so ,why they chose not to. If they could it may be a question that should be answered but no more

Posted by: Xde Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 15:12
Post #1580882

Thankfully well with irreparable renal damage and likely requiring a kidney transplant in the next 15 years.

Of course I insisted to the officer why I was getting home, and had a violently seizing passenger. I stopped, because I respect the police and believed it would help the situation, rather than being home in under five minutes with a cop car stuck to my rear.



I just wanted to say, NewJudge, that I respect you taking the time through this thread to give your input from “the other side”, and I see your posts as objective not critical. Thank you.



But that road is long, and the stretch I was on (towards M6 J16) is notably quieter than, say, Etruria, which I agree would’ve been stupidity at best and outright suicidal at worst.




I said in a previous post I called an ambulance the moment I was pulled. As soon as I stopped, the officer came to my car and I pointed to my passenger and said “ambulance”

Posted by: Xde Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 15:22
Post #1580884

I explained the issue with supply of the medication, it has a short shelf-life, needs storing under specific conditions, it is actually three powders and two liquids that need combining in a certain manner. We’d gone to collect her monthly rx, which included this medication but the order had not arrived.

And, I AM medically qualified.

(Apologies for my quote failure and thank you to whoever corrected it).

Posted by: NewJudge Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 16:09
Post #1580898

I think we shouldn't lose sight of the principle issue here. Whilst the OP may have a civil case against the police for lack of duty of care or whatever, his more pressing problem is that he now faces a serious motoring charge - the most serious there is that does not involve death or serious injury. The possible lack of care on the part of the police came after the episode that has led to the allegation of Dangerous Driving. I would suggest that any civil remedy he might seek for the actions of the police should similarly come after he has addressed the criminal charge against him.

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 18:17
Post #1580916

Exactly. Confine replies to the criminal aspect that the OP faces. Anything else is OT (though the OP is welcome to start a thread in the flame pit about it if he desires advice on that aspect - advice, not ill-informed carping).

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 22:11
Post #1580959

Fair point, but frankly in the circumstances I think a specialist motoring solicitor is the only way to go. The OP needs privileged advice and representation that goes beyond what can be provided on an online forum. I would back Logician's recommendation re Bobby Bell, you can get a free initial consultation if nothing else.

Posted by: Xde Wed, 19 Aug 2020 - 03:10
Post #1580972

I’m planning on e-mailing Bobby Bell tomorrow for his stance on things. Thanks for the recommendation.