PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Marston Warrant of Control received 29.10.2018, Apparently relates to a speeding fine sent to a previous address
Mysilvercar
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 08:08
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 31 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,687



I received the attached letter on Monday of this week.

At first i thought it was a bogus letter but after contacting HMCTS i received the following (redacted) response:

Good morning,
Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted.
Your account xxxxxxxxxx is to pay a fine for an offence that was heard at Warrington Magistrates Court on xx/03/2018. The offence details are as follows:

You failed to give information about the driver of a vehicle that was allegedly guilty of the following offence:- On xx/11/2017 at WARRINGTON drove a motor vehicle, namely A VOLKSWAGEN xxxxxxx, on a road, namely THE B5210 WOOLSTON GRANGE AVENUE, subject of a local traffic order, namely A LOCAL ORDER, at a speed exceeding 40 miles per hour.

You were fined £826.00 and your licence was endorsed with 6 points.

All original correspondence for this case was sent to FLAT 3, 32 KEPPEL ROAD, MANCHESTER, M21 0BW as this was the address passed to the court by the DVLA at the time of the offence.

As your account is now with Marstons and no longer held by the collections department, you will have to contact Marstons directly to arrange payment of your fine. Please be advise Marstons charge additional fees once an account is passed to them, if you require further information about these fees we advise you to speak to Marstons. Their contact details are as follows:


Is there anything that i can do at this stage to deal with the course or ask for a review in light of the fact that the first knowledge i had of this was on Monday (29th Oct 2018)?
It seems unbelievable that no one attempted to trace me until this was passed over to the debt recovery agency - i am on the electoral and council taxt register at my current and have been since March 2017.

My car is insured for the correct address and the address on my licence (which they have apparently endorsed) is correct so surely they could have contacted me easily?

Obviously i now need to update the registered address of my car however i am also concerned if my credit rating will now be affected.

I am really hoping that someone on here has some insight on how best to deal with this issue.

Many Thanks

Mysilvercar
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 08:08
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mysilvercar
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 16:53
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 31 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,687



QUOTE (Bailiff Advice @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 14:28) *
QUOTE (Mysilvercar @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 14:07) *
Thanks so much for all the assistance on here.
I spent quite some time ringing Warrington courts today to no avail - i eventually checked on their website and rang the 'fines' number - this put me through to Marstons (the bayliffs) who weren't particularly helpful! Eventually i went down to the court itself to declare that i wanted to make a statutory declaration.

I have completed the paperwork for the statutory declaration - unfortunately the first date the court can accommodate me is the 5th December.
The lady in the court informed me that she would contact the bayliffs (Marstons) and that given a date has been set they usually put any enforcement action on hold pending the outcome. The lady informed me that if the Statutory Declaration was accepted the bayliffs would have to reimburse me for any action that had been taken.


It is always the case that if the Magistrate Court advise the enforcement company of a pending Statutory Declaration that enforcement is placed 'on hold'. I would be very surprised to hear otherwise.

It is usually always the case that Magistrates Courts require Section 14 Statutory Declaration to be made by way of personal attendance. By way of evidence, the following is a copy of a letter that I had posted on the Consumer Action Group forum a few months ago. In this particular case, the OP had made a forum post on the basis that he had visited a solicitor to have a Statutory Declaration sworn and had submitted his sworn Stat Dec to the court. the court retuned his forms to him. This is the letter that he was sent:

The following was taken from an internet site where a debtor had sought advice after being encouraged to send a Section 14 Statutory Declaration to the court by Recorded Delivery. His sworn forms were returned to him and he received the following letter. From enquiries that I receive, these letters are now becoming very common indeed.

QUOTE
Dear Mr X

If you were unaware of the court proceedings and did not receive the court summons/ single justice procedure, you may be entitled to make a Statutory Declaration. However, please note that you only have 21 days from the date you first became aware of the proceedings to make a Statutory Declaration. If the court decides that it was not reasonable to expect you to make the declaration within this period, it may accept a late declaration made ‘Out of time’.

You can make a declaration at your local Magistrates’ Court and must attend in person to make the declaration. It cannot be done in your absence. Please contact your local Magistrates’ Court to make a prior appointment.

If you make a declaration which you know or believe to be untrue, you could be convicted of perjury, a criminal offence punished with imprisonment of up to two years.

Any financial impositions and penalty points remain valid and enforcement of financial impositions will continue until a declaration has been made.

Kind regards

xxxxxx xxxx
adminicon Officer
South East London Justice Area | HMCTS | Bromley & Bexley Magistrates Court | 1 London Road | Kent | BR1 1RA

PS: When completing the forms at the court today, were you asked whether you would be entering a guilty or not guilty plea?


I think she ticked a box stating that i was not aware of the proceedings at the time- this infers not guilty?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bailiff Advice
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 17:19
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 416
Joined: 4 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,440



QUOTE (Mysilvercar @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 16:53) *
I think she ticked a box stating that i was not aware of the proceedings at the time- this infers not guilty?


It doesn't infer guilty at all. All that is stated is that you had not been AWARE of the proceedings.
You will need to decide before attending the hearing whether you wish to plead guilty or not guilty to the charge. That must be your choice.

This post has been edited by Bailiff Advice: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 17:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 17:49
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (Bailiff Advice @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 16:11) *
If the defendant indicates that he wishes to plead guilty to the charge, his statutory declaration will be dealt with first, and straight afterwards, the Magistrate will then hear the case against him and when setting the level of fine, he will rely upon the information provided by the defendant on his statement of assets and liabilities. It is that simple...and in all the many cases that I have provided assistance, it works well.

It isn't quite that simple in this case. The offence of which he has been convicted is Failing to Provide Driver's Details. Ideally (provided he was the driver) he would like to see that charge dropped in favour of resurrecting a charge for the speeding offence to which he will (presumably) plead guilty.

He has two problems with this. Firstly, it is unlikely that the court that hears his SD will have details of that original allegation to enable it to be dealt with. Secondly (and perhaps more problematic), that allegation stems from almost a year ago and since proceedings for it would not have been started (because they did not know who to proceed against) it is now "out of time".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bailiff Advice
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 18:25
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 416
Joined: 4 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,440



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 17:49) *
QUOTE (Bailiff Advice @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 16:11) *
If the defendant indicates that he wishes to plead guilty to the charge, his statutory declaration will be dealt with first, and straight afterwards, the Magistrate will then hear the case against him and when setting the level of fine, he will rely upon the information provided by the defendant on his statement of assets and liabilities. It is that simple...and in all the many cases that I have provided assistance, it works well.


It isn't quite that simple in this case. The offence of which he has been convicted is Failing to Provide Driver's Details. Ideally (provided he was the driver) he would like to see that charge dropped in favour of resurrecting a charge for the speeding offence to which he will (presumably) plead guilty.

He has two problems with this. Firstly, it is unlikely that the court that hears his SD will have details of that original allegation to enable it to be dealt with. Secondly (and perhaps more problematic), that allegation stems from almost a year ago and since proceedings for it would not have been started (because they did not know who to proceed against) it is now "out of time".


I was assuming that there are in fact two charges. One for Faiulure to provide driver ID and the other for speeding. (I may be wrong). From the many cases that I see on the same charges, where a stat dec is made, the courts cancel the 1st charge and if the defendant pleads guilty to the charge of speeding, then depending on the actual speed and location, the number of points will usually revert to 3 point (as opposed to 6) and a new fine will be issued. If a guilty plea is entered, the new fine will always be at a lower rate (as a guilty plea attracts a one third discount).

You have made an interesting point when you mention that the court that will hear the SD will be unlikely to have details of the original allegation. In fact, where an SD appointment is made by telephone, sufficient details are usually requested by the court clerk during the call enabling the court the opportunity to approach the issuing court for a copy of the file to be transferred. I have yet to come across a case whee this doesn't happen.

In cases where a Stat Dec is sent by post after being witnesses by a solicitor, then clearly, the court will not have been able to request a copy of the court file and this would mean that although the stat dec may well be accepted, the court would not be able to hear the case against the debtor at the same time and would be required to adjourn for a fresh trial and this is precisely what the court were seeking to avoid when they introduced the amendment to Part 37 (Trial and Sentence in the Magistrates Court).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 18:50
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



I haven't read the thread but got the gist.
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 18:49) *
It isn't quite that simple in this case. The offence of which he has been convicted is Failing to Provide Driver's Details. Ideally (provided he was the driver) he would like to see that charge dropped in favour of resurrecting a charge for the speeding offence to which he will (presumably) plead guilty.

Understood but have we ascertained if he is technically guilty, i.e. legally liable?

Sorry if that's a daft question but I don't know how legislation covers liability in the original matter, where notices were not received?

Could he end up facing two charges?


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 18:59
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Bailiff Advice @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 18:25) *
In cases where a Stat Dec is sent by post after being witnesses by a solicitor, then clearly, the court will not have been able to request a copy of the court file and this would mean that although the stat dec may well be accepted, the court would not be able to hear the case against the debtor at the same time and would be required to adjourn for a fresh trial and this is precisely what the court were seeking to avoid when they introduced the amendment to Part 37 (Trial and Sentence in the Magistrates Court).

In the case of a stat dec performed in time the court has no discretion to accept or reject it. There is no hearing to adjourn.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bailiff Advice
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 19:04
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 416
Joined: 4 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,440



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 16:28) *
QUOTE (Bailiff Advice @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 16:11) *
Wherever possible, courts require a defendant to attend court IN PERSON to hear their Section 14 Statutory Declaration.


Courts have no power to compel a person to attend to make a statutory declaration, so far as I am aware.

QUOTE
Section 14 Statutory Declaration MUST be supported by a notice indicating whether they will be wishing to plead guilty or not guilty to the charge.


Where does this come from? It is not in s 14 of the Act.

QUOTE
The defendant must also provide with his Section 14 application a statement of his assets and liabilities (MC100)


Again, where is this from?


Criminal Procedure Rule 37 was amended a couple of years ago to introduce a new provisions for voiding proceedings under section 14 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 and setting aside a conviction under section 142 of the Act. In this respect rule 37.16 was added to provide a procedure for dealing with section 14 statutory declarations.

QUOTE
Rule 37.16

(b) serve with the (section 14) declaration one of the following, as appropriate, if the case began with a written charge and single justice procedure notice—

(i) a notice under rule 37.9(4)(a) (notice of guilty plea), with any representations that the defendant wants the court to consider and a statement of the defendant’s assets and other financial circumstances, as required by that rule,

(ii) a notice under rule 37.9(4)(b) (notice of intention to plead guilty at a hearing before a court comprising more than one justice), or

(iii) a notice under rule 37.9(4)© (notice of intention to plead not guilty).

if the defendant is present when the declaration is served, the rules in this Part apply as if the defendant had been required to attend the court on that occasion
;
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bailiff Advice
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 19:28
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 416
Joined: 4 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,440




Most importance was this last line under Rule 37.16:

QUOTE
If the defendant is present when the declaration is served, the rules in this Part apply as if the defendant had been required to attend the court on that occasion
;

This post has been edited by Bailiff Advice: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 19:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 19:33
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Rule 24.17 in my copy of the CrimPR. Don’t see any power for the court (or Court Service) to reject a proper declaration not made before the court.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bailiff Advice
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 19:49
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 416
Joined: 4 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,440



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 19:33) *
Rule 24.17 in my copy of the CrimPR. Don’t see any power for the court (or Court Service) to reject a proper declaration not made before the court.


As I mentioned earlier, you are correct. However, the way in courts are steered towards dealing with Stat Decs was changed with the introduction of Rule 37.16 and 37.17 and in fact, it actually works very well.

Motorists (or other defendants) are naturally worried about attending court and in this way, their stat dec can be dealt with, and straight after, the case against them is considered. If a stat dec is made by prior appointment, there is sufficient time for the defendant to obtain copies of the previous fine etc.

As long as a guilty plea is entered, the defendant leaves court with either the case against him being dismissed (not usual), or a fine of a much lesser amount and if points had been awarded against him, the number of points will usually be reduced.

If a 'not guilty' plea is entered, a new trial date will be set.

This post has been edited by Bailiff Advice: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 19:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 20:48
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Right; I thought we were seeing postal declarations being rejected. Whether it works well for individual people is up to them - though I can see both sides.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mysilvercar
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 21:16
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 31 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,687



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 14:11) *
Personally, I wouldn't wait that long. See a local Solicitor and get the SD done. (It will be a nominal charge, if any)

The bailiff's are not your friends... Enforcement action can continue.


So it turns out that the camera was a 'manned' camera and my car was doing 54mph in a 40mph zone. The police asked that £100 costs be added if I am found guilty. The paperwork they have given me and asked me to bring to court requires that I make a plea to each of the charges:

1. Exceed 40MPH (MANNED CAMERA)
2. Failed to give information relating to the identification of the driver of a vehicle.

Do I plead not guilty to both charges in the first instance of guilty to the speeding and not guilty to the failure to give information? I am certainly not guilty of failure to give information.

Or will the charge of failure to give information cease to exist if they accept my statutory declaration - ie I would then only be facing the original speeding charge which I could plead guilty to?

To be honest I am not totally sure about checking if the court is 'friendly' to the idea of a plea bargain as the lady at the court told me I would be sitting outside until I was called.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bailiff Advice
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 21:57
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 416
Joined: 4 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,440



QUOTE (Mysilvercar @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 21:16) *
The paperwork they have given me and asked me to bring to court requires that I make a plea to each of the charges:


What is the 'paperwork' that the court has given you?

This post has been edited by Bailiff Advice: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 22:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 22:13
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (Mysilvercar @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 21:16) *
I am certainly not guilty of failure to give information.

Or will the charge of failure to give information cease to exist if they accept my statutory declaration - ie I would then only be facing the original speeding charge which I could plead guilty to?

The conviction will be set aside as if it never happened. However, the charge will remain and you will face it afresh. If you are not guilty of it, go to court, perform your Statutory Declaration and when the matter is put to you again plead Not Guilty. You will then face a trial (at a later date).

Without successfully negotiating the "deal" mentioned earlier you cannot face a speeding charge as they have no evidence that you were driving. There is the additional problem that the speeding matter is now "out of time" (proceedings have to begin within six months). It will need a cooperative prosecutor to overcome this problem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bailiff Advice
post Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 00:14
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 416
Joined: 4 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,440



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 22:13) *
There is the additional problem that the speeding matter is now "out of time" (proceedings have to begin within six months). It will need a cooperative prosecutor to overcome this problem.


Is it surely the 'laying of the Information within 6 months that applies and not proceedings having to begin (within 6 months)?

Under Section 127 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, the information for a summary offence must be laid within six months of the date of the alleged offence

The information remains valid even if the summons is not served. A Defendant may make a Statutory Declaration under Section 14 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 after conviction stating that he was unaware of the contents of the summons or the actual conviction. He has 21 days etc .

The effect of a valid Statutory Declaration is to make all proceedings void..........without prejudice to the validity of the original information. That will not be affected.

This post has been edited by Bailiff Advice: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 00:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 08:57
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (Bailiff Advice @ Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 00:14) *
Is it surely the 'laying of the Information within 6 months that applies and not proceedings having to begin (within 6 months)?

I would suggest that "laying an information" is the starting point for proceedings to begin. But no matter as I was just trying to keep it simple.

In any event I believe that "laying an information" is now largely a thing of the past for matters such as this as cases usually begin with the concurrent issue of a Single Justice Procedure Notice and a "Written Charge".

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 09:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bailiff Advice
post Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 09:28
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 416
Joined: 4 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,440



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 08:57) *
QUOTE (Bailiff Advice @ Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 00:14) *
Is it surely the 'laying of the Information within 6 months that applies and not proceedings having to begin (within 6 months)?

I would suggest that "laying an information" is the starting point for proceedings to begin. But no matter as I was just trying to keep it simple.

In any event I believe that "laying an information" is now largely a thing of the past for matters such as this as cases usually begin with the concurrent issue of a Single Justice Procedure Notice and a "Written Charge".


You are right of course in that most cases start with a 'Written Charge'. That said, the situation is the same as I had outlined above (that only the summons and conviction are voided when a valid Section 14 Statutory Declaration is made. The relevant legislation is Rule 37.17 (4)

QUOTE
(4) Where the defendant serves such a declaration, in time or with an extension of time in which to do so and the case began with a summons or requisition—

(a) the court must treat the summons or requisition and all subsequent proceedings as void (but not the information or written charge with which the case began);

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure...014-part-37.pdf

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 09:32
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Bailiff Advice @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 17:19) *
QUOTE (Mysilvercar @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 16:53) *
I think she ticked a box stating that i was not aware of the proceedings at the time- this infers not guilty?


It doesn't infer guilty at all

OP said NOT guilty.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 10:37
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Bailiff Advice @ Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 00:14) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 22:13) *
There is the additional problem that the speeding matter is now "out of time" (proceedings have to begin within six months). It will need a cooperative prosecutor to overcome this problem.


Is it surely the 'laying of the Information within 6 months that applies and not proceedings having to begin (within 6 months)?

Nevertheless, if speeding was not alleged originally it is now too late to add a speeding charge for the OP to plead to.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mysilvercar
post Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 12:03
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 31 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,687



Time has gone extremely quickly & my statutory declaration is this week. So here is a quick update: i will also post an update here afterwards.

As stated above my paperwork requests pleas to both the speeding charge and the failure to provide information charge.
I intend to plead guilty to the lesser charge.

Do i need to provide evidence that the address the paperwork was originally sent to was my previous address?
I do not intend to call any witnesses as i did not believe this would be required.

With regards to making the stat dec outside court beforehand i have not done this so i will be making the declaration this week.
My car has not been removed by marstons and i do not believe that they have made another visit however my car is of low value so i do not think they would choose to remove it anyway.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 17:59
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here