PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Appealing points & fine after police stop?
Penf0ld
post Sun, 21 Apr 2019 - 20:53
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,512



Just looking to see if i can appeal the points & fine i received on Friday night or whether i can't do anything about it & can only change any future possibilities.

Basically i had 2 cars, one of which i sold Thursday night. I immediately switched my insurance over to my second car, declared the sold car SORN and taxed the second car.

Friday night i go out & am stopped by the police as i'm showing as no insurance or tax. I contact my brother who forwards me shots of the insurance document & tax purchase. I'll not get too in to it but the driver cop was being a bit of an arse over the tax, threw my phone back at me & didn't seem too impressed when my insurance checked out.

They conducted an alcohol & drugs swab which i passed but then when i was asked to produce my licence apparently there's a code on there that says i need glasses in order to drive. I wasn't wearing them so they hit me with £100 & 3 points. Letter will come through the post and i can go to court if i wish apparently.

Now i don't know how it got on my licence that i need glasses as i don't believe i do. Obviously i must've ticked a box at some point but i don't remember it. I wear glasses for things like being on the computer at night but i don't need them for driving. I can see perfectly fine, have passed the eyesight tests they do (can you read that number plate over there). I carried out my HGV lessons & test without glasses and passed. I carried out my motorbike lessons & test and passed all without glasses.

So Saturday i go to the opticians for a test & the result is not only that i don't need glasses for driving but that i don't need glasses at all. I have the results card to say this.


Now i can understand, as frustrating as it'll be, if i can't do a damn thing about it because "at the time..." my licence said that i needed glasses. I'm just here to see if because of the opticians test i had yesterday & the result of that, can i appeal this 3 points and fine as i don't actually need glasses to drive?


If it matters then in column 12 on the reverse of my licence, it states "01" for pretty much everything.

If any more info is required then just ask.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Sun, 21 Apr 2019 - 20:53
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Penf0ld
post Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 15:45
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,512



I'm not sure if you guys are trying to point score over each other or not.
If not then apologies. If you are then i'd prefer to stick to the facts. I possess glasses, i don't believe i needed to wear them for driving but i had an 01 marker on my licence. I don't wear contacts, never have nor do i own a monocle.

So i don't want to go down the route of i don't need to be wearing glasses because i could've been wearing contacts so ner ner ner ner only for them to say that's fine, can you produce evidence to say you've ever been given contacts .... errr no.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 15:57
Post #22


Member


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



QUOTE (Penf0ld @ Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 16:45) *
So i don't want to go down the route of i don't need to be wearing glasses because i could've been wearing contacts so ner ner ner ner only for them to say that's fine, can you produce evidence to say you've ever been given contacts .... errr no.

I don’t think anyone suggested that you do that.


--------------------
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
Penf0ld
post Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 18:44
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,512



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 16:57) *
QUOTE (Penf0ld @ Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 16:45) *
So i don't want to go down the route of i don't need to be wearing glasses because i could've been wearing contacts so ner ner ner ner only for them to say that's fine, can you produce evidence to say you've ever been given contacts .... errr no.

I don’t think anyone suggested that you do that.

I know. I just saw 666's post about it doesn't say it has to be wearable and i thought i'd get in before anyone has the idea of suggesting it.

That isn't to say 666 was suggesting i'd do that or to say anyone else was suggesting i'd do that but i'm just putting it out there in case that was a direction the thread was to take.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 24 Apr 2019 - 08:20
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The discussion was about what the licence code meant, in reality it's just a notification, it doesn't reflect a legal requirement.

Lets say you'r involved in a minor RTA where the Police attend and they note that code on your licence, if you aren't wearing glasses they may then think to do an eyesight test.

Not wearing glasses, or contacts, or a monocle or even perhaps having had laser correction wouldn't be relevant, only whether your vision was up to standard or not.

In your case (and we used to see this a lot, I guess the 'mutual mistake learning' has now been forgotten by the BiB) the Police misunderstood the purpose of the licence not and informing them in a 'constructive' manner should see an end of the matter (and hopefully some re-education!).


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penf0ld
post Thu, 9 May 2019 - 20:02
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,512



The notice came through today





I'm just here double checking where i should write to and also how to proceed?

Should i write to the Central Ticket Office address at Carlisle?

Also what should i do? Should i just quote the reference number, explain that i believe the code was on my licence in error, that i must have ticked a box in error at some point which put it on there. That when i was stopped the police who stopped me did not conduct any eye test on me, that i then went to the opticians the following day and the results showed that i not only do not eyesight correction for driving but i don't need it at all [insert photocopy of opticians results] and that i have sent my driving licence off to the DVLA to have this code removed [insert photocopy of proof of postage].

Is all that ok?

But then how do i end it?

Do i ask if this can be overturned, do i ask them to confirm if i am to go to court? Just wondering how to close the letter off?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Thu, 9 May 2019 - 22:01
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



You don't reply to it at all

The police will simply regard it as a rejection of COFP and pass the case to the "to be prosecuted" file
Ignoring it will have the same effect
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Thu, 9 May 2019 - 22:21
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (Penf0ld @ Thu, 9 May 2019 - 20:02) *
The notice came through today I'm just here double checking where i should write to and also how to proceed? Should i write to the Central Ticket Office address at Carlisle? Also what should i do? Should i just quote the reference number, explain that i believe the code was on my licence in error, that i must have ticked a box in error at some point which put it on there. That when i was stopped the police who stopped me did not conduct any eye test on me, that i then went to the opticians the following day and the results showed that i not only do not eyesight correction for driving but i don't need it at all [insert photocopy of opticians results] and that i have sent my driving licence off to the DVLA to have this code removed [insert photocopy of proof of postage]. Is all that ok? But then how do i end it? Do i ask if this can be overturned, do i ask them to confirm if i am to go to court? Just wondering how to close the letter off?


You should write to the Central Ticket Office at the address in Carlisle, along these lines:

I have received a conditional offer of a fixed penalty Ref xxxxxx for driving not in accordance with my licence. This must relate to an incident when I was stopped by police, in the course of which my licence was examined and a comment made that it carries Code 01 and I was not wearing glasses. As you will know, that code does not make it compulsory for me to wear glasses or other eyesight correction, it is a warning that I may need to do so in order to meet the eyesight standard required. The officer made no attempt to check my eyesight at the time. After this incident I had my eyesight tested by an optician with result that I do not need glasses to meet the driving standard and in fact do not need glasses at all. I will gladly supply proof of this if required.

In the circumstances, I request that the COFP is withdrawn and the matter dropped.




I see no point in suggesting the code was put on your licence in error.












--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 10 May 2019 - 02:11
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I agree with Logicians suggestion, except I’d replace the request in the last line with suggest.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 10 May 2019 - 07:33
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



That does sound a much better idea than my suggestion to ignore
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penf0ld
post Fri, 10 May 2019 - 18:17
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,512



Thank you very much.

What concerns me (i may be a million miles off as i've never been in this position before) is that putting something like that to them they could take a stance along the lines of - who the hell are you to tell us?! Writing to us with this wasn't one of your options so we're going to treat this as you ignoring it & we'll come down hard on you.

I may well be getting ahead of myself and worrying needlessly but that's the concern i have at the moment with it.


Would you not just include a copy of the opticians results anyway so they can see that i'm not lying with it (because until they see evidence i could just be bluffing?)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 10 May 2019 - 19:05
Post #31


Member


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



If you've got an absolute defence why do you care what "they" think?


--------------------
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
Penf0ld
post Fri, 10 May 2019 - 19:59
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,512



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 10 May 2019 - 20:05) *
If you've got an absolute defence why do you care what "they" think?

Because they decide whether to drop it or not?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 10 May 2019 - 21:30
Post #33


Member


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



QUOTE (Penf0ld @ Fri, 10 May 2019 - 20:59) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 10 May 2019 - 20:05) *
If you've got an absolute defence why do you care what "they" think?

Because they decide whether to drop it or not?

In which case you want to show them you have a strong defence, don’t you?


--------------------
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
Logician
post Fri, 10 May 2019 - 23:20
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



A prosecution should only proceed if there is a realistic prospect of conviction, based on an objective assessment, not on upset feelings. The important thing in this case is to convince the decision maker that there is only a poor prospect of conviction, which in this case is best done by pointing out that the police officer concerned has misunderstood the meaning of the code on the driving licence. There will be no wish to see the prosecution humiliated in court by having their ignorance of the meaning of the code put on display, so they will check it out. "As you will know" lets them down a little gently. That is my thinking anyway.



--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penf0ld
post Sat, 11 May 2019 - 19:06
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,512



Ok, i appreciate all the help so far, i really do, but reading this thread back & there's clearly a difference of opinion...

QUOTE (roythebus @ Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 09:59) *
Code 01 means you have to wear glasses for driving.

QUOTE (roythebus @ Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 09:59) *
No it doesn't. It means "eyesight correction", which can take other forms. And it is advisory.



The fact i'm here obviously means i'm absolutely clueless. I then read other sites & articles online. I'll pick just 1 as an example:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/4016787/cod...-revealed-fine/

And to quote a section of the article:

QUOTE
Every driver, whatever size or class of vehicle, with a 01 restriction on the rear of their licence must always wear glasses or contact lenses if they have informed the DVLA they require them for driving.


Now ok it's The Sun but it's not the only site out there saying that.

So at what point does it stop being a necessity?



I don't know if it makes a difference to the case or not but i told the police officer that i was told years ago i need to wear glasses but that i don't believe i do as i can see perfectly fine (& have passed other tests without them). He made me sign something to basically say i'd been told i need to wear glasses.


Now on the one hand you guys are here & i trust you've experienced this before & that your advice is sound, but then on the other hand some are saying there's no getting out of it - if the 01 is on there you NEED to wear glasses (ok you could say contact lenses but since i don't own a pair nor a monocle...) no arguments.

Just looking for some reassurance, a link or something that backs up the viewpoint that wearing glasses isn't a MUST.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 11 May 2019 - 19:16
Post #36


Member


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



The code on your licence is a red herring, as you’ve not, so far as I know, been accused of an offence concerning your licence. You are, presumably, accused of an offence contrary to s 96 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:

QUOTE
If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road while his eyesight is such (whether through a defect which cannot be or one which is not for the time being sufficiently corrected) that he cannot comply with any requirement as to eyesight prescribed under this Part of this Act for the purposes of tests of competence to drive, he is guilty of an offence.


You only commit that offence if you drive a motor vehicle on a road at a time when you cannot meet the eyesight test requirements, either permanently or because you’re not wearing correction. If you could have met the requirements (e.g. because your uncorrected eyesight is sufficient to meet the minimum standard) then you don’t commit an offence under s 96.

And, honestly... trying to use an article from The Sun to prove a legal point... rolleyes.gif


--------------------
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
Penf0ld
post Sat, 11 May 2019 - 22:03
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,512



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 11 May 2019 - 20:16) *
The code on your licence is a red herring, as you’ve not, so far as I know, been accused of an offence concerning your licence. You are, presumably, accused of an offence contrary to s 96 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:


I'm cautious to not ask too much as i don't want my questioning to be misunderstood as being challenging as that's not the case. My questioning is merely me trying to fully understand the situation.

Regards the bit i've quoted & highlighted ... the paper that came through says

QUOTE
you did commit the offence of driving a motor vehicle otherwise than in accordance with a licence


Therefore to me that reads as being accused of an offence concerning my licence. I've received a letter - so i'm being accused, they've said i've offended so that's that bit covered & they've mentioned my licence so the offence relates to it.

Or am i just not grasping it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Sat, 11 May 2019 - 23:04
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 11 May 2019 - 19:16) *
The code on your licence is a red herring, as you’ve not, so far as I know, been accused of an offence concerning your licence.


Actually he has, the COFP offered specifies an offence against s.87(1) RTA 1988, driving otherwise than in accordance with his licence.



--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 11 May 2019 - 23:07
Post #39


Member


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



That is an offence under s 87(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988:

QUOTE
It is an offence for a person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class.


I would imagine that the argument will be that your licence was issued subject to a condition that you wear corrective lenses (e.g. glasses or contacts). It would be irrational for that condition to apply if you didn't need to wear those corrective lenses in order to meet the minimum eyesight requirements. Once you provide evidence that you don't have to wear corrective lenses I cannot see why they would proceed with a prosecution or how you could be convicted. It would be absurd.


--------------------
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
andy_foster
post Sun, 12 May 2019 - 13:56
Post #40


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,214
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Getting back to the question of whether to ignore the COFP, reply offering evidence or reply enclosing evidence - it's the last one.

Put simply, the objective is to avoid the police wasting a day of your life by taking you to court. Your defence does not rely on the police not noticing something, so there is no benefit to keeping your powder dry. There is however a strong potential benefit in providing the most persuasive argument to a decision maker.


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 14:55
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