Failure to provide driver details and speeding summons Options

[Ste1997]

Ok so my company received a notification from a hire company the the car I was driving was clocked doing 83 in a 70 (motorway)

The NIP was addressed to the hire company who serviced details of my company, well at least that was on the form they sent to us not sure if this was passed on to the relevant authorities.

This was emailed to our general manager who passed it on to me.

I immediately replied using their on line service providing my details address etc to say I was the driver.

this was in september 2022.

I have heard nothing since until I received a summons for court in the last few days charged with speeding and failure to notify driver details.

Clearly I /we did provide details otherwise how would they know where to send the notification.

They claim they sent me a further letter in october to which I did not respond, well the answer is quite simple I never received any communication from them.

I am now facing significant penalties how should i proceed

I would appreciate you help on this matter

[Advertisement]

[roythebus]

what are you pleading not guilty to? there's 2 offences on the tale, exceeding the speed limit and failing to name the driver. the first carries 3 points and £100, the second 6 points and up the £1000 and a hefty hike in your employer's insurance premium. Hence the suggestion of a plea bargain, guilty to speeding if they drop the s172. We all know it's a losing battle.

[Irksome]

Is it? If you turn up to court and they don't in the evidence pack have a copy of the S172 addressed to the OP to present to the court then clearly the OP can't be found guilty. If they do have it then the OP can do the plea deal?

I suppose the key to it is getting the evidence pack; from my experience of Magistrates courts a while ago (a non driving matter but nonetheless) we were given the evidence pack in advance of the hearing.

[The Rookie]

Is it? If you turn up to court and they don't in the evidence pack have a copy of the S172 addressed to the OP to present to the court then clearly the OP can't be found guilty. If they do have it then the OP can do the plea deal?

I suppose the key to it is getting the evidence pack; from my experience of Magistrates courts a while ago (a non driving matter but nonetheless) we were given the evidence pack in advance of the hearing.

The evidence must* be shared in advance, however what he replies with now he still has to decide his initial approach and hasn't (or at least not shared it with us). The plea deal is less likley to be readily accepted if the prosecutor believes the defendant was playing brinksmanship with them.

*More 'should' as doesn't preclude the bench letting them off the hook with either permitting the evidence to be introduced on the day or after an adjournment if they see fit.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 8 Feb 2023 - 12:13

[Ste1997]

Is it? If you turn up to court and they don't in the evidence pack have a copy of the S172 addressed to the OP to present to the court then clearly the OP can't be found guilty. If they do have it then the OP can do the plea deal?

I suppose the key to it is getting the evidence pack; from my experience of Magistrates courts a while ago (a non driving matter but nonetheless) we were given the evidence pack in advance of the hearing.

The evidence must* be shared in advance, however what he replies with now he still has to decide his initial approach and hasn't (or at least not shared it with us). The plea deal is less likley to be readily accepted if the prosecutor believes the defendant was playing brinksmanship with them.

*More 'should' as doesn't preclude the bench letting them off the hook with either permitting the evidence to be introduced on the day or after an adjournment if they see fit.

I was of a mind to plead not guilty to both charges on the basis that I have not received the NIP and also they have not provided me with the evidence that they sent it.

are they likely to send it to me once I have submitted my evidence claiming that they have not sent? or more likely present in court?

I don't want to play games with them but clearly they have a duty to follow correct procedure.

Should my defence purely be along the lines of:-

I am pleading not guilty on the basis that I have never received a NIP

and leave it at that?

[666]

I was of a mind to plead not guilty to both charges on the basis that I have not received the NIP and also they have not provided me with the evidence that they sent it.

are they likely to send it to me once I have submitted my evidence claiming that they have not sent? or more likely present in court?

I don't want to play games with them but clearly they have a duty to follow correct procedure.

Should my defence purely be along the lines of:-

I am pleading not guilty on the basis that I have never received a NIP

and leave it at that?

Apart from indicating how you're pleading, you don't need to sqy anything else at this stage.

[Ste1997]

Ok thank you all for your help on this one, so I attended the hearing and as a number of you mentioned I was offered a plea bargain. Accept the speeding charge and they dropped the failure to notify which I accepted.

There is a twist in the tail however.

I was given a fine of £110 with £74 victim surcharge and £110 costs however when I received the paperwork from the court it listed the fine as £184 VS £74 and £110 costs.

I have emailed the court to challenge these figures but they have come back to me saying the figures are correct saying that I can appeal but would face further court costs at crown court.

There is no information within the papers received to appeal.

I have asked the court to send me details on how to appeal but I have received nothing back.

Should I just pay what I believe I owe and let them fight me for the rest or am I just wasting my time?

[Jlc]

The fine, surcharge and costs are all separate items.

The surcharge is 40% of the fine - for which £74 is correct for £184.

So it couldn’t have been £110 as the surcharge would have been £44.

[Ste1997]

Thanks JLc

the magistrate did say £110 but looks like I will have no choice but to pay this

Was wondering if the £110 is the base fine which is then increased dependant upon income although this was not explained to me?

very angry to say the least

This post has been edited by Ste1997: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 - 09:30

[NewJudge]

You should have been fined one third of a week's net income (i.e. half a week less one third discount for your guilt plea). Does this tie up with the details of your income which you provided?

[The Rookie]

Was wondering if the £110 is the base fine which is then increased dependant upon income although this was not explained to me?

No, the fine was, and still is £110. The surcharge of 40% is then added to the fine and 110x1.4=184.

Your two examples in your first post this morning arrive at exactly the same total of 110+74+110(costs).

[Jlc]

...and 110x1.4=184.

Your calculator is broken.


OP please confirm what the total is?

I think you're saying it's £184 + 40% of 184 (£74) + £110 = £368?

If the fine was £110 then it would be £264.

I have emailed the court to challenge these figures but they have come back to me saying the figures are correct saying that I can appeal but would face further court costs at crown court.

There is a potential alternative (subject to the facts/errors).

You could ask the court to consider the matter under s142 Magistrates' Courts Act.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 - 13:27

[The Rookie]

...and 110x1.4=184.

Your calculator is broken.

It is…. Doh

[Ste1997]

for the avoidance of doubt

The magistrate told me the fine was £110 this was before he asked about my income

he also said that the VS was £74

The prosecution confirmed their costs at £110

the letter I received says the fine was £184 fine plus £74 VS and £110costs

This post has been edited by Ste1997: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 - 19:33

[Ste1997]

You should have been fined one third of a week's net income (i.e. half a week less one third discount for your guilt plea). Does this tie up with the details of your income which you provided?

yes it does £110 well 101 exactly


This post has been edited by Ste1997: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 - 19:48

[Jlc]

Well you can appeal the sentence or try the s142 approach…

[andy_foster]

for the avoidance of doubt

The magistrate told me the fine was £110 this was before he asked about my income

he also said that the VS was £74

The prosecution confirmed their costs at £110

the letter I received says the fine was £184 fine plus £74 VS and £110costs

You should have been fined one third of a week's net income (i.e. half a week less one third discount for your guilt plea). Does this tie up with the details of your income which you provided?

There is doubt.
There is what you say happened, what the court say happened and what should have happened (ignoring any bits that they should have done but didn't).

Not having been there, I can confidently state that the following happened.

You were convicted of the speeding charge that you pled guilty to at a late stage (part of the recommended process for a plea deal is to initially plead not guilty until a deal can be done - it is what it is).
The court made no reference to your means statement - either because you had not submitted one, or were lazy/incompetent and based your fine on the average RWI of £440. The base fine was assessed as 50% of this RWI
before a ~1/6 discount for a late guilty plea was applied, giving a fine of £184.
The 40% surcharge was calculated as £74.
The prosecution requested costs (presumably the £110 awarded, but in any case the court decided to award £110 costs.
The chairman of the bench wrote down these figures on the paperwork that goes to the fines office.

Then, either the chairman mistakenly read out the £110 costs as the fine, or you misheard or mis-remembered.
If the chairman of the did bench get it wrong,. would you be able to prove it? (Ignoring the fact that on the face of it recording the proceedings without the court's permission is a criminal offence under the Contempt of Court Act 1981)

Arguably as a matter of law, the sentence is whatever the chairman read out, although the court would have the power to correct the mistake under s. 114 MCA 1981. If the surcharge was £74, the fine could not have been £110.

IMHO the only real issues are whether on appeal the court would apply an equivalent penalty to the fixed penalty that was not offered due to reasons unconnected with the offence, or whether your RWI is substantially below the £440 used.

My only concern regarding the above is the coincidence that the fine of £184 is exactly the same as the costs and surcharge.

This post has been edited by andy_foster: Mon, 1 May 2023 - 00:18

[Ste1997]

for the avoidance of doubt

The magistrate told me the fine was £110 this was before he asked about my income

he also said that the VS was £74

The prosecution confirmed their costs at £110

the letter I received says the fine was £184 fine plus £74 VS and £110costs

You should have been fined one third of a week's net income (i.e. half a week less one third discount for your guilt plea). Does this tie up with the details of your income which you provided?

There is doubt.
There is what you say happened, what the court say happened and what should have happened (ignoring any bits that they should have done but didn't).

Not having been there, I can confidently state that the following happened.

You were convicted of the speeding charge that you pled guilty to at a late stage (part of the recommended process for a plea deal is to initially plead not guilty until a deal can be done - it is what it is).
The court made no reference to your means statement - either because you had not submitted one, or were lazy/incompetent and based your fine on the average RWI of £440. The base fine was assessed as 50% of this RWI
before a ~1/6 discount for a late guilty plea was applied, giving a fine of £184.
The 40% surcharge was calculated as £74.
The prosecution requested costs (presumably the £110 awarded, but in any case the court decided to award £110 costs.
The chairman of the bench wrote down these figures on the paperwork that goes to the fines office.

Then, either the chairman mistakenly read out the £110 costs as the fine, or you misheard or mis-remembered.
If the chairman of the did bench get it wrong,. would you be able to prove it? (Ignoring the fact that on the face of it recording the proceedings without the court's permission is a criminal offence under the Contempt of Court Act 1981)

Arguably as a matter of law, the sentence is whatever the chairman read out, although the court would have the power to correct the mistake under s. 114 MCA 1981. If the surcharge was £74, the fine could not have been £110.

IMHO the only real issues are whether on appeal the court would apply an equivalent penalty to the fixed penalty that was not offered due to reasons unconnected with the offence, or whether your RWI is substantially below the £440 used.

My only concern regarding the above is the coincidence that the fine of £184 is exactly the same as the costs and surcharge.

Thanks Andy

the court didn't reference the means statement that I did submit with my plea (I believe it is a legal requirement to do so) but he did ask me what my salary and net income were.

I have decided that there can be nothing gained by an appeal as you rightly say, I have no evidence.

That doesn't mean that I accept that I misheard or misunderstood the fine he told me, I am very clear that it was £110.

I just don't want to incur further costs on an appeal that I don't think I have a cat in hells chance of winning.