PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Forgot to send licence - speeding
MJ85
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 13:54
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 4 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,354



Hi all

I am sure there are a few topics like this started already but I have been trying to use the search feature and unable to find one to give me advice.

Quick summary of events, I was on a motorway and it had reduced speed on the overheads of 50 mph and I was caught doing 67 mph. I was not aware of the overhead reduction but know this is not an excuse. Fixed penalty letters and all that stuff done and sent with 3 penalty points and £100 fine which I paid and submitted the forms admitting the offence.

A few months later I noticed that the money had been returned to me and I received a form informing me that I forgot to enclose my licence and the matter was going to the Magistrates Court. This seemed excessive but I pleaded guilty and explained that I was not aware that my licence was needed to be sent. A simple reminder letter would have been a much easier way to deal with this but obviously they want to try and squeeze you for every penny instead.

So now I have been given a fine of over £400 and told my only appeal is to the Crown Court which seems very excessive.

Is there any point in appealing this case? It seems such a draconian thing to have to post your licence when paper licence no longer exist and they don't actually do anything to your card licence if you send them in. They had my licence details from the original letter submitted.

All responses are highly appreciated.

P.S. just as a side note, they made their decision on 16th January and apparently posted the letter to me on that day but I only received it on Friday 25th January saying I had to pay by 30th January so today was the first day I could contact the Court to explain anything.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 13:54
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 13:59
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (MJ85 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 13:54) *
It seems such a draconian thing to have to post your licence when paper licence no longer exist and they don't actually do anything to your card licence if you send them in.

1/ Its the law that they must see your licence
2/ It clearly helps prevent people naming someone else and giving them points without their knowledge just by having that persons licence no.

The court could have sentenced you at the fixed penalty tariff but the onus was on you to point out that that could have applied, not on them to find out.

You could contact the court and request they consider re-opening the case under S142 of the magistrates court act and consider sentencing you at the fixed penalty tariff on the basis that the reason the fixed penalty wasn't offered or taken up was for reasons unrelated to the actual offence (wording from the sentencing guidelines).


--------------------
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
MJ85
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 14:03
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 4 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,354



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 13:59) *
QUOTE (MJ85 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 13:54) *
It seems such a draconian thing to have to post your licence when paper licence no longer exist and they don't actually do anything to your card licence if you send them in.

1/ Its the law that they must see your licence
2/ It clearly helps prevent people naming someone else and giving them points without their knowledge just by having that persons licence no.

The court could have sentenced you at the fixed penalty tariff but the onus was on you to point out that that could have applied, not on them to find out.

You could contact the court and request they consider re-opening the case under S142 of the magistrates court act and consider sentencing you at the fixed penalty tariff on the basis that the reason the fixed penalty wasn't offered or taken up was for reasons unrelated to the actual offence (wording from the sentencing guidelines).


I did ask and was told I could only appeal to the Crown Court.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BaggieBoy
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 14:59
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,723
Joined: 3 Apr 2006
From: North Hampshire
Member No.: 5,183



QUOTE (MJ85 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 13:54) *
his seemed excessive but I pleaded guilty and explained that I was not aware that my licence was needed to be sent.

It's virtually certain on the paperwork you got when the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty was made it would have stated that your licence must be returned along with the £100.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MJ85
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 15:18
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 4 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,354



QUOTE (BaggieBoy @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 14:59) *
QUOTE (MJ85 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 13:54) *
his seemed excessive but I pleaded guilty and explained that I was not aware that my licence was needed to be sent.

It's virtually certain on the paperwork you got when the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty was made it would have stated that your licence must be returned along with the £100.


I can only say that I did not see this on the paperwork. Again this is not an excuse, an honest oversight but rather than this whole drawn out process that has been undertaken a simple reminder letter would have surely been more sufficient. I paid the money and admitted the charge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:04
Post #6


Member


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



QUOTE (MJ85 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 15:18) *
QUOTE (BaggieBoy @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 14:59) *
QUOTE (MJ85 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 13:54) *
his seemed excessive but I pleaded guilty and explained that I was not aware that my licence was needed to be sent.

It's virtually certain on the paperwork you got when the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty was made it would have stated that your licence must be returned along with the £100.


I can only say that I did not see this on the paperwork. Again this is not an excuse, an honest oversight but rather than this whole drawn out process that has been undertaken a simple reminder letter would have surely been more sufficient. I paid the money and admitted the charge.


No doubt it was a simple mistake, but you did not fulfill the conditions of the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty.

Although highly unlikely, If there is no mention on the CoFP that you must send off your DL, then you may have an argument.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:06
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (MJ85 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 14:03) *
I did ask and was told I could only appeal to the Crown Court.

Ask them directly to repoen the case under S142 explaining why, there are specific sentencing guidelines that apply here, in most cases this isn't an issue, remember the people working the phones are untrained secretary's, don't take no for an answer, you have to push a bit.


--------------------
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
Jlc
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:13
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,505
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE
The Clerk to the Justices
xxxx Magistrates Court

Dear Sir/Madam

On DD MMM 201x I was convicted of an offence of speeding, fined £400 and given X penalty points. I am writing to request that the case be re-opened under s142 Magistrates Courts Act as it is in the interests of justice to do so. The reason for this is that the court failed to follow the guidance given in the Magistrates Courts Sentencing Guidelines on page 453. I was offered a Fixed Penalty Notice for the speeding offence but <I didn't read the instructions*>. This was an administrative reason unconnected with the offence, the circumstances covered by the guideline referred to above and therefore the starting point for consideration of sentence should have been the equivalent of the fixed penalty, not the guideline for speeding offence, as appears to have been the case.


* you may want to consider this wording carefully

However, failing to carefully read the instructions may not best please the bench in wasting court time. Guidelines here. (Although it says 'such as', the reasons were within your control)

QUOTE (MJ85 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 15:18) *
Again this is not an excuse, an honest oversight but rather than this whole drawn out process that has been undertaken a simple reminder letter would have surely been more sufficient. I paid the money and admitted the charge.

The CTO deal with thousands of tickets and don't run a 'service' for those who fail to read the conditions carefully especially as the time periods are enshrined in law (suspended enforcement period). It's harsh perhaps.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:19


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MJ85
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:46
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 4 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,354



QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:13) *
QUOTE
The Clerk to the Justices
xxxx Magistrates Court

Dear Sir/Madam

On DD MMM 201x I was convicted of an offence of speeding, fined £400 and given X penalty points. I am writing to request that the case be re-opened under s142 Magistrates Courts Act as it is in the interests of justice to do so. The reason for this is that the court failed to follow the guidance given in the Magistrates Courts Sentencing Guidelines on page 453. I was offered a Fixed Penalty Notice for the speeding offence but <I didn't read the instructions*>. This was an administrative reason unconnected with the offence, the circumstances covered by the guideline referred to above and therefore the starting point for consideration of sentence should have been the equivalent of the fixed penalty, not the guideline for speeding offence, as appears to have been the case.


* you may want to consider this wording carefully

However, failing to carefully read the instructions may not best please the bench in wasting court time. Guidelines here. (Although it says 'such as', the reasons were within your control)

QUOTE (MJ85 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 15:18) *
Again this is not an excuse, an honest oversight but rather than this whole drawn out process that has been undertaken a simple reminder letter would have surely been more sufficient. I paid the money and admitted the charge.

The CTO deal with thousands of tickets and don't run a 'service' for those who fail to read the conditions carefully especially as the time periods are enshrined in law (suspended enforcement period). It's harsh perhaps.


I think its ridiculously harsh when you consider the penalty was admitted, licence details given and fine paid.

My question is, is it worth pursuing this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:49
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,505
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (MJ85 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:46) *
My question is, is it worth pursuing this?

It costs virtually nothing to try the s142 approach.

I think you may be chalking this up to experience.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:56
Post #11


Member


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



It's worth a letter on the lines suggested but if I had to gamble, I'd go for your request falling on stoney ground.

The full passage from the Magistrates' Court guidelines says this:

"Where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed."

Most Benches will consider that the reason the offer was not taken up was clearly within your control, albeit an honest mistake, and I would guess that your request to reopen the case would be declined. However, it may be placed before a particularly benevolent Bench and it will only cost you a stamp if it fails. What I would not do is appeal to the Crown Court. You stand to gain about £300 if the Magistrates agree to reopen your case and agree to sentence you at the fixed penalty equivalent. If you appeal to the Crown Court and lose you will pay not only the original sum but also another few hundred on top in Crown Court costs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MJ85
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 17:29
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 4 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,354



QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:49) *
QUOTE (MJ85 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:46) *
My question is, is it worth pursuing this?

It costs virtually nothing to try the s142 approach.

I think you may be chalking this up to experience.


Apparently because I pleaded guilty and said I did not want to attend, my rights under s142 no longer exist and the Crown Court is my only way of appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 17:31
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (MJ85 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:46) *
I think its ridiculously harsh when you consider the penalty was admitted, licence details given and fine paid

You may feel it’s harsh, but you didn’t comply with the law (Erm like you didn’t when speeding) and this was the fairly predictable outcome unfortunately for not reading the instructions and complying with the conditions. We probably get one case like this every month of the circa 50,000 offers of fixed penalties sent out.

No ‘penalty was admitted’, nor offence for that matter (until you plead guilty following the ‘summons’).

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 17:33


--------------------
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
NewJudge
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 17:56
Post #14


Member


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



QUOTE (MJ85 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 17:29) *
Apparently because I pleaded guilty and said I did not want to attend, my rights under s142 no longer exist and the Crown Court is my only way of appeal.

Who told you that as I'm not convinced it is correct? It's certainly not mentioned in the legislation itself.

Whilst there are exceptions to the right to ask the court to re-open a case these mainly cover where a decision has been made by a higher court. Granting a request to re-open is not an administrative decision. It is a judicial decision made by the court where it thinks it is in "the interests of justice" to do so. Pleading guilty is certainly not a bar to your right to request reopening. I don't see how the fact you did not attend is either. Unrepresented defendants are not expected to know the law nor are they expected to be aware of such things as sentencing guidelines. You did not know of the court's option to sentence you at the FP level and so could not have asked them to do so along with your guilty plea. You only discovered it (mercifully quickly) after you had been sentenced. The court may not agree to your request to re-open; that is a matter for them. But I believe it should be heard.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ocelot
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 19:51
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,140
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
From: Surrey
Member No.: 1,326



QUOTE (MJ85 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 13:54) *
It seems such a draconian thing to have to post your licence when paper licence no longer exist and they don't actually do anything to your card licence if you send them in.


Actually they do still exist (I still have one), buy you are correct they don't do anything to them any more other than presumably check them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 20:33
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Indeed, I still have a paper licence as does my wife.


--------------------
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
andy_foster
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 20:44
Post #17


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:04) *
No doubt it was a simple mistake, but you did not fulfill the conditions of the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty.


The "conditional" part of the offer of a fixed penalty is that the driver would not be liable to tot up. Sending off the licence is a requirement.


--------------------
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
peterguk
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 20:49
Post #18


Member


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



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 20:44) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:04) *
No doubt it was a simple mistake, but you did not fulfill the conditions of the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty.


The "conditional" part of the offer of a fixed penalty is that the driver would not be liable to tot up. Sending off the licence is a requirement.


Ah, OK. Thanks.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 22:20
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 13:59) *
QUOTE (MJ85 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 13:54) *
It seems such a draconian thing to have to post your licence when paper licence no longer exist and they don't actually do anything to your card licence if you send them in.

...

2/ It clearly helps prevent people naming someone else and giving them points without their knowledge just by having that persons licence no.

I don't think this is any more likely, now, to be the actual reason than the first time you mentioned it.

How about the fact that the procedure had been established when paper licences had to be physically endorsed, and the government is especially slow to deal with technological change?

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 10:00
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 22:20) *
How about the fact that the procedure had been established when paper licences had to be physically endorsed, and the government is especially slow to deal with technological change?

Given the lengths people go to to avoid speeding penalties, I think the risk of people providing someone else's licence details is significant. Once you had someone else's driving licence number all you'd have to do is fill in the form, add a brief note saying you're in the process of updating the address (assuming the 3rd party licence holder lives elsewhere) and ta-da, you've avoided the points.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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 - 14:30
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