PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

MS90 - STAT DECLARATION BOOKED IN
mewhyalways
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 17:01
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 20 Mar 2019
Member No.: 103,016



I did some digging on my licence as I needed to renew it. dvla told me I cannot renew it because it was 'revoked'. I said when, they said around 2009; I was very much confused.

(I should had renewed my licence when it expired in 2012, but of course life takes its course)

so in the interim I was highly confused on this so ordered a provisional. But after more digging I was given 6 points and a £600 fine with ms90 - failing to provide driver information. I didn't know what all this related to.

fast forward and to cut a long story short, the woman from the courts advised me it was regarding a vehicle (which I did have) but I sold the vehicle. I probably had it for around 2 months if that.

I gave everything to the new person as you would do. Now I am thinking about it, they probably didn't change over the name on the logbook there and then and kept it how it was. (Yes you are supposed to send of the slip).

Now this has happened. The situation would be is that it was take me back to having to re-do my whole licence again, when in actual fact, I do not need to, as this situation 'was somebody else'.

How did the court even go ahead and issue myself with the points and the fine exactly? How does that even work? Did the police not do their checks on the actual driver etc...?

Now the court is going to further on my case and hopefully this will get settled.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 17:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
peterguk
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 17:17
Post #2


Member


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



QUOTE (mewhyalways @ Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 17:01) *
I gave everything to the new person as you would do.

No. You fill in new keeper details and send to DVLA.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 17:32
Post #3


Member


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



You don’t keep a slip, you give a slip to the buyer and send ALL the rest off.

You would have been sent a notice requiring you to name the driver at the time of an original offence (speeding or red light), when you didn’t you would have been summonsed for the offence of failing to do so, when that was ignored you would have been convicted in your absence, all normal, routine, regular and above board.

Yes if you get the conviction overturned via the MS90 you should get your original full licence back.


--------------------
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
NeverMind
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 17:35
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 521
Joined: 15 Oct 2011
From: England
Member No.: 50,387



QUOTE (mewhyalways @ Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 17:01) *
How did the court even go ahead and issue myself with the points and the fine exactly? How does that even work? Did the police not do their checks on the actual driver etc...?


They did that by sending you the S172 ... did you not receive anything at all at the time of the offence, or have you moved since owning the vehicle?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mewhyalways
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 11:12
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 20 Mar 2019
Member No.: 103,016



QUOTE (NeverMind @ Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 17:35) *
QUOTE (mewhyalways @ Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 17:01) *
How did the court even go ahead and issue myself with the points and the fine exactly? How does that even work? Did the police not do their checks on the actual driver etc...?


They did that by sending you the S172 ... did you not receive anything at all at the time of the offence, or have you moved since owning the vehicle?



I never went back/haven't been back to the old place I was renting at back in 2009; I never thought there was any need/reason to. I didn't really get any post there anyway...


since 2009 till now ive lived in around three different places. From my knowledge and recollection, I do not remember receiving anything to do with this....?

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 17:32) *
You don’t keep a slip, you give a slip to the buyer and send ALL the rest off.

You would have been sent a notice requiring you to name the driver at the time of an original offence (speeding or red light), when you didn’t you would have been summonsed for the offence of failing to do so, when that was ignored you would have been convicted in your absence, all normal, routine, regular and above board.

Yes if you get the conviction overturned via the MS90 you should get your original full licence back.




Well this is what I am hoping for.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 12:41
Post #6


Member


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



QUOTE (mewhyalways @ Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 11:12) *
I never went back/haven't been back to the old place I was renting at back in 2009; I never thought there was any need/reason to. I didn't really get any post there anyway...

It sounds like you didn't bother getting your licence address updated either?


--------------------
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
Darkatmosphere
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 13:24
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,643



Even though the OP had moved several times per sale of this vehicle, He failed to notify the DVLA of change of keeper details, he also failed to update his licence in 2012, MS90 from 2009 is now "spent", The OP was also in his probationary period according to the MSE forum https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=5979205.

The OP wants to try and circumvent having to redo his tests again, by having his now spent conviction set aside, and his licence would then have to be reinstated from what nonsense the people on MSE has posted, he already knows this is not going to go favorably for him. Court cant circumvent the will of parliament.



--------------------
There are a lot of laws in this country, but there isn't any justice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 13:53
Post #8


Member


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



I took it as read he was in his probation period.

If the MS90 is set aside and he's then convicted of the underlying offence, how does that circumvent the will of parliament?


--------------------
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 Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 13:56
Post #9


Member


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



QUOTE (Darkatmosphere @ Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 13:24) *
Court cant circumvent the will of parliament.

No it certainly cannot.

However, I foresee some problems. Assuming his SD is accepted it nullifies the conviction that gave him six points (and led to the revocation of his licence). This should see his full licence reinstated (or at least provide him with the opportunity of applying for one). Prosecutors then have the option (nearly always taken) to resurrect the charge and start again. The difficulty I see is that I'm not sure whether the material to support a conviction from an offence which occurred ten years ago will be available. Equally, if it is, I'm not sure the OP would be in position to defend it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TonyS
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 16:09
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,214
Joined: 24 Mar 2013
From: Scotland
Member No.: 60,732



As discussed in another thread, if the SD is done but the case is resurrected, he'll then have a 2019 conviction that will need to be declared for insurance purposes for the next five years. So I would have thought it hinges on the chances of a successful defence. It seems to me that it wasn't practical for him to provide the information, since he didn't receive the request. However does the fact that this was of his own making inherently disqualify that defence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 17:01
Post #11


Member


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



QUOTE (TonyS @ Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 16:09) *
It seems to me that it wasn't practical for him to provide the information, since he didn't receive the request.

We don't know when it was posted, and whether OP was living at that address at the time of posting. If he was, then CPS can, if they still have the documentation, rely on presumption of delivery.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darkatmosphere
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 17:38
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,643



QUOTE (TonyS @ Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 16:09) *
As discussed in another thread, if the SD is done but the case is resurrected, he'll then have a 2019 conviction that will need to be declared for insurance purposes for the next five years. So I would have thought it hinges on the chances of a successful defence. It seems to me that it wasn't practical for him to provide the information, since he didn't receive the request. However does the fact that this was of his own making inherently disqualify that defence?

No it would not disqualify him, I think it could be his undoing, If he walks in there thinking because he moved and passage of time within reason of when he moved and the postage of the S172, it makes him innocent of FTF he will be sorely disappointed, Whiteside V DPP 2011, I've also got Purnell in mind too at this moment.

I am also perplexed that the magistrates fine from 2009 hasn't had any sort of warrant attached to it or sentence in absence either and the OP hasn't been Skip located using available methods such insurance, council tax, electoral roll, and credit checking, very odd, its like the OP has been flying under the radar.

This post has been edited by Darkatmosphere: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 17:46


--------------------
There are a lot of laws in this country, but there isn't any justice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 18:01
Post #13


Member


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



QUOTE (Darkatmosphere @ Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 17:38) *
... If he walks in there thinking because he moved and passage of time within reason of when he moved and the postage of the S172, it makes him innocent of FTF he will be sorely disappointed,

It may not make him innocent but it may be difficult to prove him guilty.

QUOTE (Darkatmosphere @ Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 17:38) *
I am also perplexed that the magistrates fine from 2009 hasn't had any sort of warrant attached to it or sentence in absence either and the OP hasn't been Skip located using available methods such insurance, council tax, electoral roll, and credit checking, very odd, its like the OP has been flying under the radar.

People turn up at Magistrates' Courts every day and it is discovered that they owe considerable sums from earlier, unrelated matters. The authorities are sometimes not too good at tracing people who move about a bit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mewhyalways
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 21:04
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 20 Mar 2019
Member No.: 103,016



1) im trying to gauge the general consensus here regarding my situation.... whether if that is to continue with the statutory declaration or to just give it all up...

2) I also want to know, at what point (if any) will I be cross-examined? or is this a case where I go into a court room, plea not guilty to 1-3 people on the bench, they set it aside, and then they look into it....?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 23:18
Post #15


Member


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



QUOTE (mewhyalways @ Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 21:04) *
1) im trying to gauge the general consensus here regarding my situation.... whether if that is to continue with the statutory declaration or to just give it all up...

2) I also want to know, at what point (if any) will I be cross-examined? or is this a case where I go into a court room, plea not guilty to 1-3 people on the bench, they set it aside, and then they look into it....?


You seem to be under a misapprehension here.

When you make your SD you will not be questioned at all. You will simply be making a declaration that you knew nothing of the proceedings against you. The court has no decision to make as to whether your original conviction will or will not be set aside. The SD automatically will see it set aside.

It has become usual now for people making an SD to have the original charge put to them as soon as the SD has been made. Whether this will be done in your case is unclear. I doubt the details of your case are readily available (if they are available at all). If the original matter is put you should plead Not Guilty. Your trial (if you ultimately decide to defend the matter) will not take place then but some weeks or even months later. Before then you will be provided with the evidence the prosecution intends to rely on to convict you. That will give you time to decide what to do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darkatmosphere
post Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 14:21
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,643



OP you have been asked questions that is important to gauge what advice should be given ill ask again:

When did you move out of the flat and how long was it before you moved out you sold this vehicle?

I feel this is a very important question, what due diligence did you put in place to ensure that when you moved you were contactable?

The one issue that has been said is this, passage of time, The CPS and Courts and Tribunal Services May not have record of this offence no longer, BUT, this is not a guarantee, County courts and magistrates usually archive records for 10 years, after which they can then destroy them if they wish, or have them offsite archived or sent to national archives.
Your fine was still outstanding, so I'm doubtful that they are destroyed, but remain in archive, CPS can gain the original file from the courts if it still remains, I feel it would be most likely that the file is archived rather than destroyed. Your case is in a balance of a 50/50 chance that the file destroyed or archived.

If no record exists of your original case CPS or Courts archive, then I cant see a re trial and case is dismissed. If it is, this is where answering the all questions would help us help you.

Set aside your stat dec hearing for now its just an administerial formality procedure were looking past this to the re-trial hearing.

You know the risks involved moving forward, that you could end up facing MS90 over again for the next 5 years.
You know your insurance would hike up as insurance do not like this MS90 code not one bit.
You know you would have declare to Employers and any DBS background checks they need to perform it would show up on.

Lets set aside the it could have been destroyed angle and assume they have case files what is your defence?

There is case law that could, even though you disagree with, could make you responsible for to the S172.
Take Whiteside: you have no defense purely base on the fact you didn't know about the notices. The guy was out of the country, but he had to have a system in place to fulfill his duty to respond to a S172.
What I am trying as well as other to figure out WITH you if you would answer, is that was It reasonably practicable for you to have been aware of the notice, and by this it is means is there system that COULD have been set in place by you as due diligence for E.G Royal mail diversion of your Letters to a place where the letters could have been opened or had you returned periodically if you lived within a reasonable distance from the flat, and you could have been notified about the obligation under S172 to respond.
We can gather you are guilty of DVLA Admin errors, which has led to this, but I am stuck on your Due Diligence (as you have posted nothing to indicate) and your reasonably practicable set of circumstances to a defence at present time. Ill post up a page of case law that the bar is set below. just to show what you us and a lawyer is facing.
Elias LJ said at para 28:


A defendant does not have a defence under section 172(7)(b) Road Traffic Act 1988 merely by virtue of the fact that he has no knowledge that the notices were sent.

In an appropriate case a defendant may be able to show in such circumstances that it was not reasonable practicable for him to have been aware of the notice, in which case the defence will apply.

The defendant was regularly out of the country, he was only at home for approximately 7 days per month, he spent time overseas on business or travel or at his home in Singapore, his post was dealt with by his wife or staff, and if letters could only be dealt with by him personally the would go to his private secretary.

The magistrates said:


“We take into account Mr Whiteside’s personal circumstances. We do not accept the defence put forward by them that Mr Whiteside acted with due diligence and Mr Whiteside should have ensured that systems were in place to deal with receipt of such important documents as these. In addition, the systems that were in place for post opening at his home address whilst he is absent were not effective on these occasions.”

This post has been edited by Darkatmosphere: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 14:33


--------------------
There are a lot of laws in this country, but there isn't any justice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 16:28
Post #17


Member


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



Yes I can understand the above and "letting sleeping dogs lie" (albeit you still have an outstanding fine and costs to pay). Your decision (which I thought you'd already made) is therefore this:

You can leave matters be and deal with the fine (if you are contacted about it). The upside of this is that you no longer have any active points on your driving record or any unspent motoring convictions you would have to make known to insurers or anybody else who wants to know. The downside is that since your full licence was revoked under the "New Drivers'" legislation, when you apply for a new licence it will be a provisional one and you will have to take a test again.

Or...

You can make your SD, and have the conviction set aside. The upside of this is that you can apply for a new full licence (since you will have no conviction that leads to revocation). The downside is as described above: you take the chance that your prosecution will be resurrected, you will have considerable difficulty successfully defending it (though not an entirely impossible task) and if you fail you face six points (shown on your record for four years, though insurers may want to know for five) with an endorsement code that insurers particularly dislike. As well as that you face licence revocation again because the six points were accumulated from an offence which occurred within two years following your first successful driving test.

That's why, before you make your SD,you really need to consider the chances of successfully defending a prosecution should it be resurrected.

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 16:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 16:32
Post #18


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 8,205
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 16:28) *
Yes I can understand the above and "letting sleeping dogs lie" (albeit you still have an outstanding fine and costs to pay). Your decision (which I thought you'd already made) is therefore this:

You seem to be replying to someone other then the OP?


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 16:52
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,300
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 16:28) *
You can make your SD, and have the conviction set aside. The upside of this is that you can apply for a new full licence (since you will have no conviction that leads to revocation). The downside is as described above: you take the chance that your prosecution will be resurrected, you will have considerable difficulty successfully defending it (though not an entirely impossible task) and if you fail you face six points (shown on your record for four years, though insurers may want to know for five) with an endorsement code that insurers particularly dislike. As well as that you face licence revocation again because the six points were accumulated from an offence which occurred within two years following your first successful driving test.

That's why, before you make your SD,you really need to consider the chances of successfully defending a prosecution should it be resurrected.

Revocation, yes. But don't the points only stay on his licence for four years from the date of the offence, not the conviction?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darkatmosphere
post Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 16:55
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,643



QUOTE (Fredd @ Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 16:32) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 16:28) *
Yes I can understand the above and "letting sleeping dogs lie" (albeit you still have an outstanding fine and costs to pay). Your decision (which I thought you'd already made) is therefore this:

You seem to be replying to someone other then the OP?

The OP at one point had replied to my comment (no deleted as it only showed my quote) but replied IN the quote of my comments and questions were answered. Its was basically his reply was, moved, never went back, never paid a second thought to going back, and the period of time he sold the car and moving away was approx. 2-8 weeks later.

Its clear the OP's SD is a main reason is to circumvent the New drivers Act, because by his reasoning he didn't have knowledge of the proceedings, and "it was somebody else" fault for getting upto trouble in a car he sold on, so he should have his full licence back without having to take his tests according to op. As per his OP below.

QUOTE (mewhyalways @ Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 17:01) *
I did some digging on my licence as I needed to renew it. dvla told me I cannot renew it because it was 'revoked'. I said when, they said around 2009; I was very much confused.

(I should had renewed my licence when it expired in 2012, but of course life takes its course)

so in the interim I was highly confused on this so ordered a provisional. But after more digging I was given 6 points and a £600 fine with ms90 - failing to provide driver information. I didn't know what all this related to.

fast forward and to cut a long story short, the woman from the courts advised me it was regarding a vehicle (which I did have) but I sold the vehicle. I probably had it for around 2 months if that.

I gave everything to the new person as you would do. Now I am thinking about it, they probably didn't change over the name on the logbook there and then and kept it how it was. (Yes you are supposed to send of the slip).

]Now this has happened. The situation would be is that it was take me back to having to re-do my whole licence again, when in actual fact, I do not need to, as this situation 'was somebody else".

How did the court even go ahead and issue myself with the points and the fine exactly? How does that even work? Did the police not do their checks on the actual driver etc...?

Now the court is going to further on my case and hopefully this will get settled.


This post has been edited by Darkatmosphere: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 17:00


--------------------
There are a lot of laws in this country, but there isn't any justice.
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 18:53
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