Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
FightBack Forums _ Speeding and other Criminal Offences _ Totting up ban with Court date impending.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 20:55
Post #1332182
Hi.
First of all, I am full aware it's my own doing and even though the last offence was a genuine error on my part, it is still my own fault
The last offence took place on the 12/10/17. The road is a duel lane i.e. 2 lanes going the same direction (and 2 the other) through a town and I assumed wrongly that it was a 40 limit when it was in-fact a 30.
A policeman with a radar caught me doing 35 and so received a FPN a few days later.
I send the form back and this morning received the below:
"A further endorsement of 3 penalty points makes you liable for disqualification through the 'totting up' process. This can no longer be dealt with at the fixed penalty stage and xxxxxx Police will contact you in due course"
I checked earlier on the DVLA site and this is showing the below:
SP30
Penalty points: 3
Offence date: 25 Feb 2017
SP30
Penalty points: 3
Offence date: 2 May 2016
SP30
Penalty points: 3
Offence date: 18 Oct 2014
Expired
This shows that at the time, I had 9 points but the 3 on the 18th October came off just 6 days after the date of offence.
I'm really asking if anyone has any advice regarding my court appearance. I wish to accept fault but would like to know what I can possibly do to reduce any ban. Should I get legal representation?
The DVLA site is now showing I only have 6 points, so I guess the 3 expired came off and any for this latest offence are yet to be added?
Posted by: Logician Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 21:54
Post #1332192
As you rightly say, it is points at the date of offence that matter, that you are now down to 6 is not relevant, although there is nothing to stop you mentioning that in your argument. You have no points for this latest offence until you go to court, which is why nothing is shown by the DVLA. The police have 6 months to charge you and often take the best part of that, so do not think you have been forgotten about if you hear nothing for months. As you are admitting the offence, the only way to avoid a ban is to put forward an exceptional hardship argument. There is no reason you cannot put this together and present it yourself, it will sound more authentic than a solicitor going through the ritual s/he has done hundreds of times before. Hardship to others counts for more than hardship to yourself, so start thinking about the effects both direct and indirect of being unable to drive for 6 months.
When you have got it all down we can critique it here and perhaps get it a bit more polished. It is possible for the court to reduce the 6 months but most totting bans are for 6 months or there is no ban at all.
Posted by: andy_foster Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 21:56
Post #1332194
Points are not automatically added to your licence every time you exceed the speed limit - so as you have not been able to accept a fixed penalty and have not yet been convicted by a court of law, of course the points for the latest offence have not been added yet. They do not currently exist.
For the purposes of totting up, it is the dates of the offences that matters - the latest offence (assuming that you are eventually convicted) was committed 6 days before the first offence was 3 years old, so will still count.
Search the forum for "exceptional hardship"
Posted by: I am Weasel Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 21:57
Post #1332196
Have you done a Speed Awareness Course in the last 3 years?
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 22:09
Post #1332198
Thank you all for your replies.
Things are much clearer to me now. I'm self-employed but work from home, so take mail to the sorting office and pick up stock, along with hospital appointments and taking my parents out now and again so I guess these can't really be ruled as Hardship.
I will have a good read through everything on here (especially the hardship section) and hopefully there is something on there I can use.
I've also took a speed awareness course which was last year, so can't do that again as you know.
Thank you again and please do post up if there is anything that can help my case that may not be elsewhere.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Fri, 17 Nov 2017 - 10:45
Post #1332265
I've not got round to reading through everything regarding hardship on here yet to forgive me please if the below is of no use:
I did suffer from Anxiety and Panic attacks and whenever I'm out and no I have a place of refuge, that does help me.
My doctor is also aware of this issue and has prescribed medication which I've been able to stay off for well over a year.
I've also full stopped drinking and smoking over the last 14 months due to a liver condition/slight drinking problem and not having a car may trigger thoughts of starting those up again.
I guess the above are not rules for hardship but no car would definitley be an issue in these senses.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 12:37
Post #1353564
Just a quick update:
I spoke to a nice chap a week or so ago from the Central Ticket Office who said it is still going to court and I should receive a date soon.
Also, last night I received an email saying I would be getting a £100 refund and with the email header: "Confirmation of refund for your order placed with MoJ-HMCTS Fixed Penalty Office".
If I remember right I must have paid the £100 initial penalty so I'm asking if this has been refunded due to the case having a court day being put into process?
He did also mention the mitigation are on the form and that I should fill that in, so I will be working out that shortly.
Posted by: NewJudge Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 13:04
Post #1353578
Almost certainly
Don't work too hard on "mitigation" in the mistaken belief it explains your "exceptional hardship".
Mitigation is factors that reduce the seriousness of the offence itself (of which you do not appear to have any). Your Exceptional Hardship plea will have to be made in person in court. You will asked to give evidence of the hardship you and/or others will suffer as a result of your ban and you will be required to do so after taking an oath or affirmation.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 16:59
Post #1353693
Almost certainly
Don't work too hard on "mitigation" in the mistaken belief it explains your "exceptional hardship".
Mitigation is factors that reduce the seriousness of the offence itself (of which you do not appear to have any). Your Exceptional Hardship plea will have to be made in person in court. You will asked to give evidence of the hardship you and/or others will suffer as a result of your ban and you will be required to do so after taking an oath or affirmation.
Thank you for your reply.
To be honest, I'm expecting 6 months even though there are the below points which as put to me already, don't matter to the court.
I just wanted to confirm that £100 is a refund due to the forward process of the court summons.
Points which I'm on the understanding aren't going to change the court's decision = both hardship and mitigation but only possible reasons that could be used for appeal
I work for myself and have to take mail to the sorting office, along with pick up stock.
Up until a few years ago, this road was a 40 limit.
I was going at a speed which felt right on that road and the same speed as other users. It's a double lane akin to a dual carriage way with central reservation, where there are no residential buildings but admittedly there is before (where I was doing 30).
It is going down hill, towards a bend so speed crept up and don't like looking at the speedo in circumstances like this as dangerous.
It was dry and clear visibility
If it was around 5 days later, I would have 6 points on my license due to 3 coming off, so then there would have been no question of a totting up ban.
It was 34 in a 30 and understand if it had been 33, I would have been okay. A poiliceman with a radar gun recorded this.
Again, I am aware none of the above count for anything so will go to court in person and see what they say but expecting a 6 month ban.
Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:01
Post #1353696
Only your first point is relevant to a hardship plea.
Posted by: AntonyMMM Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:05
Post #1353702
I was going at a speed which felt right on that road and the same speed as other users. It's a double lane akin to a dual carriage way with central reservation, where there are no residential buildings but admittedly there is before (where I was doing 30).
It is going down hill, towards a bend so speed crept up and don't like looking at the speedo in circumstances like this as dangerous.
It was dry and clear visibility
If it was around 5 days later, I would have 6 points on my license due to 3 coming off, so then there would have been no question of a totting up ban.
It was 34 in a 30 and understand if it had been 33, I would have been okay. A poiliceman with a radar gun recorded this.
Again, I am aware none of the above count for anything so will go to court in person and see what they say but expecting a 6 month ban.
Only your first point is remotely relevant for a hardship plea - and a very weak one. You need to find things that are exceptional to reduce or avoid a ban altogether. Impact on other people always counts higher than just what affects you.
The rest of your points relate to the speeding offence - that will be 3 points whatever you say about it, so forget those.
Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:06
Post #1353703
There is a clue in the name of ‘exceptional hardship’ that is hardship you would suffer as a result of a rotting ban. The circumstances of this (or any of the other offences that make up the 12 points) is of no relevance at all.
As SP says only your first point you’ve made related to hardship, the others may refer to your feeling of ‘hard done by’ but hardship it is not.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:32
Post #1353724
Yes, that's why I'm expecting a ban.
Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:42
Post #1353737
Well why not actually try on your hardship plea?
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:14
Post #1353757
I will do that but as pointed out, it's not a very strong case.
There's also a couple of solicitors local to me I'm thinking of contacting to see if anything else can be done, including the hardship reasons but also in case there's any technicality on how/where the speed was recorded, as they will be familiar with that stretch of road.
I don't understand what the mitigating circumstances would be for, if not for what I've put.
Is it if someone's in an emergency or similar?
Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:20
Post #1353763
A solicitor can’t create hardship, you either have a case or not, if you don’t I wouldn’t waste your money.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:23
Post #1353764
Okay, thanks.
Is there a way to find out if I have a hardship case? or is just a case of finding out on the day?
And am I right in it being the best option to go in person?
I also don't understand the point of the mitigation field on the form. If my points aren't relevant, what are?
Posted by: NewJudge Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:28
Post #1353765
There are not too many mitigating circumstances for speeding.
Unless you can pay to instruct an expert, attempting to gain an acquittal because of flaws in the speed measurement is likely to prove fruitless. All your latest offence boils down to is that you misunderstood the prevailing limit. An expert will be hard pushed to show that the measurement was 5mph or more out.
Even if you believe you will suffer exceptional hardship paying a solicitor to put your case forward is unlikely to help. You will have to tell the court in your own words what the ban will mean to you. Beware of solicitors that build up your hopes. Remember, they get paid, win or lose. What will being unable to drive mean for you and/or others apart from you having to get your stuff to the sorting office? If nothing else then I believe you are on a sticky wicket.
Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:56
Post #1353774
Mitigation is trying to reduce the sentence for the offence. You won’t mitigate much in a speeding case. It is not the same as pleading exceptional hardship. By law, exceptional hardship cannot include arguments that seek to make the offences for which you have received points less serious (i.e. mitigation of those offences).
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:59
Post #1353775
Unless you can pay to instruct an expert, attempting to gain an acquittal because of flaws in the speed measurement is likely to prove fruitless. All your latest offence boils down to is that you misunderstood the prevailing limit. An expert will be hard pushed to show that the measurement was 5mph or more out.
Unless you will suffer exceptional hardship paying a solicitor to put your case forward is unlikely to help. What will being unable to drive mean for you and/or others apart from you having to get your stuff to the sorting office? If nothing else then I believe you are on a sticky wicket.
Okay, thank you.
I'll have to accept the ban as it's not really going to affect family members in a sense that the court would change their mind and the only real hardship is getting to the sorting office and picking up stock which will be a hassle.
Posted by: NewJudge Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 19:15
Post #1353778
Unfortunately driving bans are intended to cause a bit of hassle.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 19:38
Post #1353783
Unfortunately driving bans are intended to cause a bit of hassle.
I see that now
Not sure how these people who knowingly speed and are far in excess of the limit get away with it but hey ho.
Thanks again anyway for your help.
Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 22:41
Post #1353816
Because the hardship plea doesn’t take account of those factors.
Or only speed where the cameras aren’t....
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 23:56
Post #1353833
Mitigation is trying to reduce the sentence for the offence. You won’t mitigate much in a speeding case. It is not the same as pleading exceptional hardship. By law, exceptional hardship cannot include arguments that seek to make the offences for which you have received points less serious (i.e. mitigation of those offences).
Yes, so as I am admitting I'm in the wrong, ccan I inform the court of these non-hardship points in the hope of a lesser penalty?
Posted by: peterguk Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 00:01
Post #1353834
Mitigation is trying to reduce the sentence for the offence. You won’t mitigate much in a speeding case. It is not the same as pleading exceptional hardship. By law, exceptional hardship cannot include arguments that seek to make the offences for which you have received points less serious (i.e. mitigation of those offences).
Yes, so as I am admitting I'm in the wrong, ccan I inform the court of these non-hardship points in the hope of a lesser penalty?
What points are you thinking of making?
From your first post i would not be saying you had no idea of the correct limit, and generally, there is little to mitigate in a speeding offence.
A contrite apology for a momentary lapse in concentration might be a better approach.
for 35 in a 30 it's going to be 3 points whatever you say.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 00:23
Post #1353839
Mitigation is trying to reduce the sentence for the offence. You won’t mitigate much in a speeding case. It is not the same as pleading exceptional hardship. By law, exceptional hardship cannot include arguments that seek to make the offences for which you have received points less serious (i.e. mitigation of those offences).
Yes, so as I am admitting I'm in the wrong, ccan I inform the court of these non-hardship points in the hope of a lesser penalty?
What points are you thinking of making?
From your first post i would not be saying you had no idea of the correct limit, and generally, there is little to mitigate in a speeding offence.
A contrite apology for a momentary lapse in concentration might be a better approach.
for 34 in a 30 it's going to be 3 points whatever you say.
Thanks.
That's what I mean in another post, if I go in person and sincerely apologise, this may help lesser the conviction? After apologizing and they possibly then asking for any reasons as to why it happened, maybe I could mention some of those points? rather than saying nothing. Or should I just point blank say nothing, admit I'm in the wrong?
Again, I do fully admit I have gone over the limit but it was not intentional and to be frank, I'm very angry with myself for making this stupid mistake.
Posted by: peterguk Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 00:32
Post #1353840
35 in a 30 is only ever going to be 3 points whether you say nothing or recite the bible in Russian.
Posted by: southpaw82 Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 00:33
Post #1353841
The minimum number of points the court can impose for speeding is 3, unless there are special reasons not to, which don’t appear to apply in your case.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 00:51
Post #1353844
35 in a 30 is only ever going to be 3 points whether you say nothing or recite the bible in Russian.
How do people who do over 100 on the motorway avoid a ban?
I was going at a speed which felt right on that road and the same speed as other users. It's a double lane akin to a dual carriage way with central reservation, where there are no residential buildings but admittedly there is before (where I was doing 30).
It is going down hill, towards a bend so speed crept up and don't like looking at the speedo in circumstances like this as dangerous.
It was dry and clear visibility
If it was around 5 days later, I would have 6 points on my license due to 3 coming off, so then there would have been no question of a totting up ban.
It was 34 in a 30 and understand if it had been 33, I would have been okay. A poiliceman with a radar gun recorded this.
Again, I am aware none of the above count for anything so will go to court in person and see what they say but expecting a 6 month ban.
Only your first point is remotely relevant for a hardship plea - and a very weak one. You need to find things that are exceptional to reduce or avoid a ban altogether. Impact on other people always counts higher than just what affects you.
The rest of your points relate to the speeding offence - that will be 3 points whatever you say about it, so forget those.
Thank you.
Posted by: thisisntme Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 00:52
Post #1353845
35 in a 30 is only ever going to be 3 points whether you say nothing or recite the bible in Russian.
How do people who do over 100 on the motorway avoid a ban?
But your OP says 35...
Weird edit - You said in your original reply that your speed was 34...
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 00:56
Post #1353846
Okay, thanks.
I'll go in person and see what happens.
35 in a 30 is only ever going to be 3 points whether you say nothing or recite the bible in Russian.
How do people who do over 100 on the motorway avoid a ban?
But your OP says 35...
Weird edit - You said in your original reply that your speed was 34...
Yes sorry, it's 35.
If I remember correctly, if it was 34 I may have been okay.
Posted by: peterguk Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 02:18
Post #1353863
Enforcement normally starts at 110% + 2, so in a 30 it would be 35.
Had your speed been measured at 34, you would not have been stopped.
Posted by: notmeatloaf Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 09:28
Post #1353877
As others have said, mitigation is pretty pointless seeing as you'll be at the minimum the magistrates can sentence you at anyway.
However, the mitigation you have provided could easily be interpreted as you thinking you know better than the speed limit, not that you really check your speedo much anyway, and asides, you were barely speeding anyway so why all the big deal?
With that approach the magistrates may well think that the attitude is exactly one intended to be penalised by the totting system.
Not saying that to be difficult, just to highlight there is a fine line between mitigation and excuses for speeding. It admittedly doesn't matter much this time around, but you never know when you might need those magistrates on side and thinking you're a careful motorist in future (hopefully not!). Absent of exceptional hardship contrition is normally the easiest tact.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:05
Post #1353950
I was going at a speed which felt right on that road and the same speed as other users. It's a double lane akin to a dual carriage way with central reservation, where there are no residential buildings but admittedly there is before (where I was doing 30).
It is going down hill, towards a bend so speed crept up and don't like looking at the speedo in circumstances like this as dangerous.
It was dry and clear visibility
If it was around 5 days later, I would have 6 points on my license due to 3 coming off, so then there would have been no question of a totting up ban.
It was 34 in a 30 and understand if it had been 33, I would have been okay. A poiliceman with a radar gun recorded this.
Again, I am aware none of the above count for anything so will go to court in person and see what they say but expecting a 6 month ban.
Only your first point is remotely relevant for a hardship plea - and a very weak one. You need to find things that are exceptional to reduce or avoid a ban altogether. Impact on other people always counts higher than just what affects you.
The rest of your points relate to the speeding offence - that will be 3 points whatever you say about it, so forget those.
Thank you.
35 in a 30 is only ever going to be 3 points whether you say nothing or recite the bible in Russian.
How do people who do over 100 on the motorway avoid a ban?
But your OP says 35...
Weird edit - You said in your original reply that your speed was 34...
I'm going to have to re-check this. I'm pretty sure now it was 35 I was recorded at but if it had been 34 I would have been okay.
Enforcement normally starts at 110% + 2, so in a 30 it would be 35.
Had your speed been measured at 34, you would not have been stopped.
Yes, I read that on here.
I was just thinking that the court may be a little lenient, as with it only being 1 mile over and points came off literally a few days later, they may have had a bit of leeway.
However, the mitigation you have provided could easily be interpreted as you thinking you know better than the speed limit, not that you really check your speedo much anyway, and asides, you were barely speeding anyway so why all the big deal?
With that approach the magistrates may well think that the attitude is exactly one intended to be penalised by the totting system.
Not saying that to be difficult, just to highlight there is a fine line between mitigation and excuses for speeding. It admittedly doesn't matter much this time around, but you never know when you might need those magistrates on side and thinking you're a careful motorist in future (hopefully not!). Absent of exceptional hardship contrition is normally the easiest tact.
Thank you for your post.
Yes, I fully understand what you're saying and if that's how they wish to interpret it, then so bit it.
I do know myself that at the time, I didn't realize I was speeding but obviously this is no excuse to them.
At the end of the day, I was over the limit.
I'll go to the court, apologize and I guess that's all I can do.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 23:00
Post #1354134
However, the mitigation you have provided could easily be interpreted as you thinking you know better than the speed limit, not that you really check your speedo much anyway, and asides, you were barely speeding anyway so why all the big deal?
With that approach the magistrates may well think that the attitude is exactly one intended to be penalised by the totting system.
Not saying that to be difficult, just to highlight there is a fine line between mitigation and excuses for speeding. It admittedly doesn't matter much this time around, but you never know when you might need those magistrates on side and thinking you're a careful motorist in future (hopefully not!). Absent of exceptional hardship contrition is normally the easiest tact.
Thank you for your post.
Yes, I fully understand what you're saying and if that's how they wish to interpret it, then so bit it.
I do know myself that at the time, I didn't realize I was speeding but obviously this is no excuse to them.
At the end of the day, I was over the limit.
I'll go to the court, apologize and I guess that's all I can do.
Enforcement normally starts at 110% + 2, so in a 30 it would be 35.
Had your speed been measured at 34, you would not have been stopped.
Yes, I read that on here.
I was just thinking that the court may be a little lenient, as with it only being 1 mile over and points came off literally a few days later, they may have had a bit of leeway.
Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 15:42
Post #1354315
The court will see it as 5 miles over, the legal limit is 30, not 34.
Posted by: Mayhem007 Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 11:17
Post #1355017
As has been implied by others the magistrates will show no leniency at all. The police are the ones that decide to charge you with speeding and present their evidence to the CPS. The magistrates hands are tied by legislation. You were at least 1 mile over the limit and that is what they decide on the sentence, based on the offence and mitigation and previous record.
Posted by: Fredd Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 11:50
Post #1355030
As has been pointed out, the OP may have been 1 mph over the (discretionary) enforcement limit, but that was 5 mph over the actual speed limit.
Posted by: Mayhem007 Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 10:41
Post #1355428
As has been pointed out, the OP may have been 1 mph over the (discretionary) enforcement limit, but that was 5 mph over the actual speed limit.
Further to what Fredd and CP and others have intemated or stated, the discretionary tolerance has not actually got anything to do with taking into account driver's mistakes per se. It pretty much comes about by the manufacturing of speedometers and their minute inaccuracies.
Manufacturers were given specs on how accurate speedometers should be in the earlier days. Speedometers inaccuracies should not under read by more than 10%, however the over reading is not so strictly controlled, as over reading should have drivers driving below the required speed limit. Manufacturers tend to deliberatley calibrate speedometers for over reading and these will over read within 10%. The accuracies of modern speedometers are now much more superior at the lower end of speed.
So if at the time of driving the speed was measured as 34 or 35, chances are your speedometer was reading higher. Nevertheless the magistrates will judge the case on the information or evidence presented to them.
Don't expect any leniency. The sentence will be 6 months ban, unless you can prove mitigation.
Posted by: peterguk Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 10:51
Post #1355434
Presumably you mean exceptional hardship?
Posted by: Logician Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 14:13
Post #1355535
And even more so, the only method of speed measurement available to the police, involving policemen hiding in hedgerows, one waving a handkerchief when the vehicle passed so that his colleague could start the stop watch which he stopped when the vehicle reached him at the end of the measured distance, measured by means of a very long tape. Appreciating that it might not be possible to convince a court that this system was accurate to within 1 mph to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, the police for entirely pragmatic reasons chose to exercise their discretion and allow a margin of error.
Posted by: Mayhem007 Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 10:03
Post #1355840
Presumably you mean exceptional hardship?
Absolutely. I am sure it has been said in previous posts [not havinf read them all], but the hardship would have to be predominantly to others rather than the OP.
Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 11:35
Post #1355874
Presumably you mean exceptional hardship?
Absolutely. I am sure it has been said in previous posts [not havinf read them all], but the hardship would have to be predominantly to others rather than the OP.
No, the statute mentions exceptional hardship, nothing about who to.
The court when considering what is (or is not) exceptional may place more weight on hardship to what is, on the face of it, an innocent party, but no third party need be impacted for it to be exceptional.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 12:24
Post #1356224
35 in a 30 is only ever going to be 3 points whether you say nothing or recite the bible in Russian.
How do people who do over 100 on the motorway avoid a ban?
But your OP says 35...
Weird edit - You said in your original reply that your speed was 34...
Just clarifying it was 35
Thank you all again for your help.
I received the Single Justice Procedural Notice this morning and while I fully expect to get a 6 month ban, I will plea mitigation with regards to needing transport to get to the sorting office.
Can I ask that while it says pleading online is the best option, is this the case? or would it be better to send a hard copy?
Thanks.
Posted by: Logician Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 14:11
Post #1356285
With computerisation, I expect online is best and less likely to be misplaced. You are not pleading mitigation, you wish to put forward an exceptional hardship argument. State that on the form and your case will be sent to an ordinary court where you can attend.
Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 14:58
Post #1356302
If you are going to be banned then they will invite you to attend a court apparently anyway.
This is NOT mitigation, it’s an exceptional hardship plea, mitigation is trying to mitigate a single offence, you won’t be doing that.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 16:33
Post #1356328
Thanks for your reply.
I still don't understand what mitigation is if it's not the reasons I outlined in my initial post.
Do I have to say "exceptional hardship" on the form or just enter the hardship info in the mitigation fields?
This is NOT mitigation, it’s an exceptional hardship plea, mitigation is trying to mitigate a single offence, you won’t be doing that.
Ah okay I think I understand. I'm not trying to mitigate the last speeding offence for which I'm guilty but to claim exceptional hardship on the totting up ban.
So I leave the mitigation section but how do I plead exceptional hardship? I mean is there a section on the online form? Forgive me but not on a computer at the moment.
Posted by: notmeatloaf Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 17:26
Post #1356344
You can put what you like on the form, "I intend to present an argument for exceptional hardship" is fine. As has been said SJP is an administrative process done by someone in an office. They will barely look at your form as their only job is to refer the case to magistrate's court.
Posted by: Mayhem007 Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 10:16
Post #1356502
You will be expected to go into the witness box and state under affirmation or on the bible your mitigation, which will be given more weight. If you simply give statement then this will be given less weight and may not be taken into consideration.
Posted by: thisisntme Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 11:46
Post #1356525
You're continuing the confusion. What is being discussed is Exception Hardship. This is different to mitigation. A mitigation argument will count for nought when it comes to Exceptional Hardship.
Posted by: Lodesman Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 12:17
Post #1356532
If your exceptional hardship plea involves others such as a disabled relative take any supporting documentation with you to back up your plea.
Also, don't forget that the magistrates will also have in the back of their minds the question that, if you need your licence so badly, why have you risked it by speeding regularly.
Posted by: stewpots Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:14
Post #1356887
35 in a 30 is only ever going to be 3 points whether you say nothing or recite the bible in Russian.
How do people who do over 100 on the motorway avoid a ban?
But your OP says 35...
Weird edit - You said in your original reply that your speed was 34...
Just clarifying it was 35
Thank you all again for your help.
I received the Single Justice Procedural Notice this morning and while I fully expect to get a 6 month ban, I will plea mitigation with regards to needing transport to get to the sorting office.
Can I ask that while it says pleading online is the best option, is this the case? or would it be better to send a hard copy?
Thanks.
I faced a totting up band and pleaded hard ship on two incident third parties , not about what it would do to me and that was ok
I subsequently appealed a case to the crown and got of that and was back to 6 points
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 21:22
Post #1357066
35 in a 30 is only ever going to be 3 points whether you say nothing or recite the bible in Russian.
How do people who do over 100 on the motorway avoid a ban?
But your OP says 35...
Weird edit - You said in your original reply that your speed was 34...
Just clarifying it was 35
Thank you all again for your help.
I received the Single Justice Procedural Notice this morning and while I fully expect to get a 6 month ban, I will plea mitigation with regards to needing transport to get to the sorting office.
Can I ask that while it says pleading online is the best option, is this the case? or would it be better to send a hard copy?
Thanks.
I faced a totting up band and pleaded hard ship on two incident third parties , not about what it would do to me and that was ok
I subsequently appealed a case to the crown and got of that and was back to 6 points
Glad to hear that.
I'm not sure that I can please hardship for anyone else though as am single at the moment and the only unfortunate thing is I take my parents out once a week and short break once a year.
My dad is diabetic but can still drive etc. so while not in the best of health, he doesn't need me as such.
Enforcement normally starts at 110% + 2, so in a 30 it would be 35.
Had your speed been measured at 34, you would not have been stopped.
Yes, it's a shame I wasn't just 1mph lower as that and the fact 3 points were to come off seems a little unfair that I should get 6 months.
The court will see it as 5 miles over, the legal limit is 30, not 34.
I agree but as it has changed from a 40 to 30 over the years and there are no signs up, it would have been helpful if the council could have put up signs.
I'm not making excuses as such but it seems a little unfair, as while the speed limit was changed, I wasn't living there so was non the wiser. With it being not dissimilar to a dual carriageway, I just assumed (stupidly) that it wasn't the same as a single lane.
This is NOT mitigation, it’s an exceptional hardship plea, mitigation is trying to mitigate a single offence, you won’t be doing that.
I don't see why I can't plead mitigation in the sense of me under the impression it was a 40 with the dual carriage way and the fact the speed had been changed from 40 to 30 and I was going with the flow of the traffic.
So while the admin don't look at it, it is important to put any reasons as to why I don't think I deserve 6 months as when it goes to court, my argument will then be raised?
Also I don't have to state it's exceptional hardship on the form? I can simply put a list of points as to why it could be considered a lower penalty?
Yes, I fully understand but like I said, I genuinely didn't think I was speeding, I thought I was doing 35 in a 40 - as that is what the limit used to be.
Posted by: Logician Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 21:36
Post #1357075
As already explained to you, you cannot get less than 3 points for speeding so you are wasting your effort on trying to mitigate your latest offence. You need to present an exceptional hardship case, you should say that is what you intend to do. Your EH case should not say anything about the offences that make up the 12 points, the court may not consider anything said to present any of the offences as less serious. The court can consider only hardship caused to yourself or others, and will consider hardship to others more significant than to yourself. So personal circumstances matter, how you came by the points and mitigation for the latest offence do not matter at all, cannot be taken into account, and waste the magistrates' time reading about them if you put them in.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 22:02
Post #1357086
Thanks for your help.
Just seems a little off that I can't explain why I thought it was still a 30.
Surely at the court then will ask if there's anything I have to say and I can raise the above then?
Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 22:16
Post #1357094
Why you thought it was a thirty is wholly irrelevant unless it constituted a defence to the allegation.
For totting each case that acquired the points can be contested, once you have totted up it’s just the EH that will be considered.
Entirely logical really as the court can’t revisit the preceding cases.
While you may think it’s unfair (I don’t and suspect you think that as you feel a ‘bit hard done by’) that’s not relevant, it’s the law.
Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 22:21
Post #1357097
Thanks for your help.
Just seems a little off that I can't explain why I thought it was still a 30.
Surely at the court then will ask if there's anything I have to say and I can raise the above then?
I’m not sure why you’re having difficulty with this point. You cannot mitigate the penalty to fewer than 3 points because that is the least the court can award. The court cannot take account of any exceptional hardship argument that seeks to lessen the seriousness of the offence.
(a) any circumstances that are alleged to make the offence or any of the offences not a serious one,
(b) hardship, other than exceptional hardship, or
(c) any circumstances which, within the three years immediately preceding the conviction, have been taken into account under that subsection in ordering the offender to be disqualified for a shorter period or not ordering him to be disqualified.
You can say whatever you like but that is the law.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 22:47
Post #1357110
It definitely doesn't constitute a defense?
It also baffles me why they don't put a 30 speed limit sign up as like I said before, with it being 2 lanes in the same direction people still consider rightly or wrongly that it is still a 40.
Thanks for your help.
Just seems a little off that I can't explain why I thought it was still a 30.
Surely at the court then will ask if there's anything I have to say and I can raise the above then?
I’m not sure why you’re having difficulty with this point. You cannot mitigate the penalty to fewer than 3 points because that is the least the court can award. The court cannot take account of any exceptional hardship argument that seeks to lessen the seriousness of the offence.
(a) any circumstances that are alleged to make the offence or any of the offences not a serious one,
(b) hardship, other than exceptional hardship, or
(c) any circumstances which, within the three years immediately preceding the conviction, have been taken into account under that subsection in ordering the offender to be disqualified for a shorter period or not ordering him to be disqualified.
You can say whatever you like but that is the law.
I guess it's not worth going in person then as it's going to be a waste of my time.
I have no case for Exceptional Hardship apart from having to take orders to the Sorting Office but I'm sure they'd just tell me to get a Taxi.
Thanks for your help all.
Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 22:47
Post #1357114
It definitely doesn't constitute a defense?
It also baffles me why they don't put a 30 speed limit sign up as like I said before, with it being 2 lanes in the same direction people still consider rightly or wrongly that it is still a 40.
"People" should know that two lanes doesn’t mean the limit is 40. That concept doesn’t exist in law or the Highway Code.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 22:54
Post #1357117
It definitely doesn't constitute a defense?
It also baffles me why they don't put a 30 speed limit sign up as like I said before, with it being 2 lanes in the same direction people still consider rightly or wrongly that it is still a 40.
"People" should know that two lanes doesn’t mean the limit is 40. That concept doesn’t exist in law or the Highway Code.
Everyone is overtaking me on that stretch of road when I'm doing 30.
Maybe a sign would help.
Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 22:56
Post #1357119
Almost certainly!
Posted by: Logician Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 01:15
Post #1357142
As you have no case for it, then there is no point in trying for exceptional hardship. They will ask you to attend court anyway, to ensure you know you have been disqualified and understand the consequences.
Posted by: progbloke Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 11:38
Post #1357230
You never know, some of them might get zapped as well.
Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 13:40
Post #1357297
Every time I have ever driven from https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5099431,-0.0025303,3a,75y,71.07h,89.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1silrNEfFEzugWUC2kWSThHw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 up to the 50 signs, every single car has overtaken me well over 30 with one exception (which is memorable enough that I actually remember it), doesn't change the fact that the police could prosecute everyone who's doing 35 or more.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 12:21
Post #1368482
Hi.
First of all apologies for the image quality, I have to go out but will be back shortly and can upload another pic later.
I'm just wondering if this letter is what to be expected or does it seem possible that I may be let off?
Posted by: Jlc Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 12:28
Post #1368485
Not sure how you come to that conclusion.
This is the opportunity to present your exceptional hardship plea should you want to.
Posted by: BaggieBoy Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 12:28
Post #1368486
You aren't being let off (as in no punishment), they are giving you the chance to make a case for the likely totting ban not to be imposed.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 12:32
Post #1368487
I don't mean let off per se.
In other words, is this part of the process to be expected?
I didn't fill in anything in the hardship area of the return form, apart from saying sorry and not realising the speed limit had changed from 30 - 40.
Posted by: NewJudge Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 12:56
Post #1368507
Yes. The court (or Single Justice) that first heard your matter decided that disqualification must be considered. You should not normally be disqualified in your absence without first warning you that it may happen and giving you the opportunity to attend court before it does. That's what the letter is for.
A plea of "Exceptional Hardship" can only be made in person before a court. You will have to give evidence under oath (or affirmation) explaining the hardship you or others will suffer. As the letter says, if you fail to turn up for your next hearing the matter will be dealt with in your absence and it is a certainty that you will receive a six month ban (which will begin immediately).
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 13:19
Post #1368521
Okay, thank you very much.
I'm not sure whether it's worth attending as I don't have a hardship case, apart from taking my orders to the sorting office and general inconvenience. which I fully understand is not sufficient.
I think I'll attend and simply apologise again.
Posted by: Jlc Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 14:02
Post #1368548
There's nothing to lose in attempting an EH plea - but the chances seem slim.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 16:37
Post #1368589
Yes, I don't expect to but worth a go
Posted by: notmeatloaf Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 17:22
Post #1368601
The advantage to replying (other than a punt at EH if you want it) is, as they say, otherwise you must not drive past 9/4 because even though the court hearing will not take place then, because disqualification is immediate you will have no way of knowing when it starts.
So depending on how busy/efficient the court is you will be having (albeit "voluntary") time added onto your six months. The ban will start from the day of the court hearing, not the 9th.
It depends on how much you value that extra time.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 17:59
Post #1368610
Yes, good point.
I'll get the form sent out tomorrow.
I guess it won't be too long to wait for a court date once that is in?
Posted by: notmeatloaf Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 18:18
Post #1368615
Depends on how busy they are. If you call the court they could probably let you know.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 18:34
Post #1368619
Thanks.
To be honest, the longer the better now as would like to make the most of as much of the summer as possible before the ban.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Wed, 21 Mar 2018 - 12:17
Post #1368767
I've been thinking over the past day that this ban would affect some of my customers and their delivery arrivals.
For small items, I take these to the sorting office in 3 postal sacks which I will be able to manage on foot, albeit I may have to take more than 1 trip.
However for larger items, I use MyHermes and their nearest drop-off point is around 2 miles away.
There is no way I can carry these larger items on foot and if I got a taxi/bus this would kill my profit.
I'm also not able to use the're pickup service as that would make another day for my customers, who always want their items as soon as possible. One of my selling points over competitors is that I offer speedy delivery.
==
Would the above be worth saying to the court? I truly am unsure how to workaround this.
Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 21 Mar 2018 - 13:05
Post #1368778
You can try for exceptional hardship. however theres a difference between kills profit short term (6 months) and kills your business totally.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Wed, 21 Mar 2018 - 13:41
Post #1368785
Yes, I understand fully.
I'm just thinking it's worth a try.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 11:10
Post #1375578
Just a quick update to let you know my court date is on the 14th of June.
It was initially the 22nd of May but have just received another letter saying it's the 14th of June and that the case should now be referred to a full court hearing. (I did request a change in date for a later time but not sure if this is part of the reason why it's been changed).
Can I ask what this means (full court hearing)?
Posted by: NewJudge Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 11:24
Post #1375580
A hearing before a normal Magistrates' Court, presided over by either three "lay" magistrates or a District Judge. That was how all motoring matters that went to court were dealt with before the introduction of the "Single Justice" procedure.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 11:34
Post #1375585
A hearing before a normal Magistrates' Court, presided over by either three "lay" magistrates or a District Judge. That was how all motoring matters that went to court were dealt with before the introduction of the "Single Justice" procedure.
Thank you.
So the only difference is the "Single Justice" procedure has less people and there isn't any cause for concern?
Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 11:51
Post #1375588
As you can’t present your case before a single justice (he works with just a legal advisor in an office) asking for a hearing to present an EH case could only ever result in what you now have.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 11:59
Post #1375594
Okay, thank you.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:17
Post #1418431
Just an update as forgot about posting on here.
I actually got a 3 month ban instead of 6 due to my solicitor informing the judge of little known legislation with regards to the most recent offence being so near to the time the first points were to come off, along with defenses we gave including the Community Support officer who came to court and defended hadn't brought proof he'd measured between the lampposts.
Court was on the 16th of July and my ban comes to an end midnight on the 15th of next month.
Thanks for you advice but glad I did get a Solicitor as otherwise it would have been 6 months without question.
Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:40
Post #1418441
What legislation is that?
If it was a defence you wouldn’t have been convicted. It would (should) have no bearing on sentence.
Posted by: peterguk Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:41
Post #1418442
Please explain in more detail. Either points are counted for totting, or they are not.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:46
Post #1418445
The below comes from the end of case letter I got from my Solicitor
"The 3 penalty points imposed for this offence meant you had accumulated a total of 12 points for offences committed within a 3 year period and therefore you were at serious risk of a minimum 6 month Totting Up disqualification.
However, after considering the mitigation that I advanced on your behalf and looking very closely at the wording of section 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the Judge VERY unusually agreed to not impose the minimum 6 month Totting Up disqualification despite you not having exceptional hardship grounds. The Judge agreed to impose a 3 month totting up disqualification on the basis you had only been caught by the totting up provisions by 6 days."
Posted by: peterguk Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:54
Post #1418450
"The 3 penalty points imposed for this offence meant you had accumulated a total of 12 points for offences committed within a 3 year period and therefore you were at serious risk of a minimum 6 month Totting Up disqualification.
However, after considering the mitigation that I advanced on your behalf and looking very closely at the wording of section 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the Judge VERY unusually agreed to not impose the minimum 6 month Totting Up disqualification despite you not having exceptional hardship grounds. The Judge agreed to impose a 3 month totting up disqualification on the basis you had only been caught by the totting up provisions by 6 days."
So which bit is the little known legislation? A totting ban doesn't have to be 6 months, and it appears the court used some discretion.
Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:58
Post #1418454
"The 3 penalty points imposed for this offence meant you had accumulated a total of 12 points for offences committed within a 3 year period and therefore you were at serious risk of a minimum 6 month Totting Up disqualification.
However, after considering the mitigation that I advanced on your behalf and looking very closely at the wording of section 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the Judge VERY unusually agreed to not impose the minimum 6 month Totting Up disqualification despite you not having exceptional hardship grounds. The Judge agreed to impose a 3 month totting up disqualification on the basis you had only been caught by the totting up provisions by 6 days."
That’s not little known at all, that’s the legislation exceptional hardship pleas are made under. It makes no mention of the closeness of the offence to points ceasing to count for totting purposes, though clearly this was a matter the court saw fit to take into account. “Exceptional hardship” is simply shorthand for “that there are grounds for mitigating the normal consequences of the conviction and thinks fit to order him to be disqualified for a shorter period or not to order him to be disqualified” so clearly the court found there were such grounds.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 21:08
Post #1418455
All I remember is the Solicitor pointing the Judge as some wording to which the Judge said "very interesting".
To which he then gave me 3 months.
Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 21:16
Post #1418464
That would be the wording I’ve just quoted.
Posted by: monkeybrains74 Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 21:25
Post #1418466
Indeed.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)