PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

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


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,512



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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

If any more info is required then just ask.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Sun, 21 Apr 2019 - 20:53
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 12 May 2019 - 13:58
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,778
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 12 May 2019 - 14:56) *
Getting back to the question of whether to ignore the COFP, reply offering evidence or reply enclosing evidence - it's the last one.

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

Precisely so.


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

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penf0ld
post Wed, 15 May 2019 - 17:38
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,512



I understand that i have 28 days to send my licence off (even though i don't currently have it - explained earlier) else the case can (will) go to court.
I sent off my letter as advised here on Monday. I know it's very what if but what if they choose not to respond to it as it wasn't on their option list and then the 28 days pass?

Or am i getting ahead of myself and they will respond to a letter in time?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Wed, 15 May 2019 - 19:22
Post #43


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,592
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



You seem to have us confused with Mystic Meg.


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

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penf0ld
post Sat, 18 May 2019 - 19:30
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,512



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 15 May 2019 - 20:22) *
You seem to have us confused with Mystic Meg.

Not at all.

What i'm hoping for is not a crystal ball reader but people who have been in the same situation or know of someone who has and can therefore offer responses based on actual experience.

I've written off stating my case. If this (as far as the powers that be are concerned) is not an available option to me and they therefore do not reply & the 28 days pass then i'm in a bit of bother, so in the meantime i thought i'd reach out to anyone who doesn't possess a crystal ball but does possess experience.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 19 May 2019 - 04:27
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,578
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



So you send off the FPN asking for a court case, if they decide to drop it then that won’t change their mind, in fact I’d have sent it with the letter.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penf0ld
post Sun, 19 May 2019 - 11:32
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,512



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 19 May 2019 - 05:27) *
So you send off the FPN asking for a court case, if they decide to drop it then that won’t change their mind, in fact I’d have sent it with the letter.

But that wasn't the advice here at the time. I came here looking for people who know about this kind of situation & how i can try and avoid taking the hit. The advice at the time appeared to be write off with my reasoning ... and then wait.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 19 May 2019 - 13:01
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,778
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



If you have a conditional offer of a fixed penalty then Rookie’s advice is erroneous in that you don’t have to send off the FPN (because you don’t have one) and if you do nothing it in encumbent upon the police to prosecute you if they wish. Presumably you don’t want to be prosecuted so it would be best to show them in advance why a prosecution would not succeed.


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

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baroudeur
post Sun, 19 May 2019 - 13:18
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 533
Joined: 24 Sep 2014
Member No.: 73,212



In his posts the op seems rather uncertain.

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

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

For a C (HGV) entitlement, a medical form has to completed which includes an eye test report so it may be worth getting a copy from DVLA.

It's a driver's responsibility to ensure his licence is correct and if it has code 01 then glasses (or contacts) have to be worn whenever driving any vehicle and this is not advisory and not doing so is an offence of "driving not in accordance with the licence".

It's quite possible that a person could read a number plate and pass the roadside test but the eyesight requirements also cover visual acuity and peripheral vision defects of which may need to be declared when applying for or renewing a licence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Sun, 19 May 2019 - 14:22
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,228
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (baroudeur @ Sun, 19 May 2019 - 14:18) *
It's a driver's responsibility to ensure his licence is correct and if it has code 01 then glasses (or contacts) have to be worn whenever driving any vehicle and this is not advisory and not doing so is an offence of "driving not in accordance with the licence".


Are you sure? The general consensus here is to the contrary (see post #2 et seq), and that for it to be mandatory the relevant code is 121.

BTW code 01 does not indicate glasses or lenses, but "eyesight correction, for example glasses or contact lenses".


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sun, 19 May 2019 - 14:25
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,437
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Could it be argued that this includes laser surgery or "healing" with age ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Sun, 19 May 2019 - 16:03
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,228
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (Redivi @ Sun, 19 May 2019 - 15:25) *
Could it be argued that this includes laser surgery or "healing" with age ?


It would be difficult to argue against laser surgery, but that is academic if the code is purely advisory.

In the present case, the officer doesn't appear to have asked about contacts or surgery, which would make a prosecution even more ill-advised.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penf0ld
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 20:56
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,512



Ok let me ask this ...

The letter i received, which i posted here, says i have 28 days to reply before it goes to court.

So let's say for arguments sake that this letter you've advised me to send off (which i have) gets ignored because it's not part of their options for me.
So the 28 days come and go and now i'm going to court (for arguments sake).
I state my case and lose (based on the reasoning i'm about to quote directly after this).

Question is ... what about the punishment? Will it be the same £100 and 3 points i was facing or is it more than likely going to be more? I would assume same points but more in terms of money fine?

QUOTE (baroudeur @ Sun, 19 May 2019 - 14:18) *
For a C (HGV) entitlement, a medical form has to completed which includes an eye test report so it may be worth getting a copy from DVLA.

It's a driver's responsibility to ensure his licence is correct and if it has code 01 then glasses (or contacts) have to be worn whenever driving any vehicle and this is not advisory and not doing so is an offence of "driving not in accordance with the licence".

See for the bit in bold, that's what i thought and that's what i'm reading. The only place i've found otherwise is people on this forum right here in this thread but everything i read suggests what you're saying to be correct.
Now i'm not saying the advice i've been given is wrong. I'm hoping experienced people are talking from experience. I just can't find any evidence to back it up though.

As for a copy from DVLA, i got my updated licence back this week with the 01 code removed. That wont help me any for this case but at least it's been changed to avoid this hassle in future.

QUOTE (666 @ Sun, 19 May 2019 - 15:22) *
Are you sure? The general consensus here is to the contrary (see post #2 et seq), and that for it to be mandatory the relevant code is 121.
See the code 121 i searched is: 121 - restricted to conditions specified in the Secretary of State’s notice. Which doesn't say anything about eyewear being mandatory.

QUOTE
BTW code 01 does not indicate glasses or lenses, but "eyesight correction, for example glasses or contact lenses".
To me 01 seems to relate more to eye condition than 121? At least 01 actually mentions "eyesight"?

And i don't want to get in to saying in court - well 01 doesn't specify glasses does it, it could be contacts so tongue.gif
You're quite right Mr. Penfold. Were you wearing them?
Errrrr, errrrrrrrrr, yeah, i was, honest.
Oh really, then why didn't you mention this to the copper when he was giving you points?
Errrrr, errrrr, i forgot
And do you have any contact lenses prescription? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that you have ever had a single contact lense ever in your life?
Errrrrr, yeah but not with me right now and i hope you wont want me to find it at a later date either .... because i can't prove anything that didn't exist!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 20:58
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,778
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



So take the fixed penalty.


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

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penf0ld
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 21:40
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,512



well no but that doesn't really answer the question does it.

Can anyone provide legal documentation that says you do not have to wear glasses/contacts/monocles or have had corrective surgery or whatever other workaround anyone cares to mention if there's an "01" marker on your card?

Anything i find says that you have to. So i must be looking in the wrong places because people are saying here that you do not have to and that this is the basis of my appeal.

So since it's likely i'm going to end up in court then i would like to see what documentation these forum members are reading when they're getting this information that i've been unable to find because it could help me a lot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 22:24
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,778
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Penf0ld @ Wed, 22 May 2019 - 22:40) *
well no but that doesn't really answer the question does it.

It answers the question in as much as if you don’t believe what you’re being told for whatever reason then that is your cheapest way out if you are convinced that you will otherwise be convicted.


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

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 22:47
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,996
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (Penf0ld @ Wed, 22 May 2019 - 21:40) *
well no but that doesn't really answer the question does it. Can anyone provide legal documentation that says you do not have to wear glasses/contacts/monocles or have had corrective surgery or whatever other workaround anyone cares to mention if there's an "01" marker on your card? Anything i find says that you have to. So i must be looking in the wrong places because people are saying here that you do not have to and that this is the basis of my appeal. So since it's likely i'm going to end up in court then i would like to see what documentation these forum members are reading when they're getting this information that i've been unable to find because it could help me a lot.


It appears to me that s.92(5) RTA 1988 has the effect that if a driving licence is to be issued requiring the driver to comply with any condition because of a physical disability, the SoS (in practice the DVLA) "must serve notice in writing to that effect on that person and must include in the notice a description of the disability" So if you have not been served with such a notice, and I do not think a code on your licence would count as a notice, then your licence is not subject to that condition.

I stand to be corrected, however.



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penf0ld
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 23:09
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,512



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 22 May 2019 - 23:24) *
QUOTE (Penf0ld @ Wed, 22 May 2019 - 22:40) *
well no but that doesn't really answer the question does it.

It answers the question in as much as if you don’t believe what you’re being told for whatever reason then that is your cheapest way out if you are convinced that you will otherwise be convicted.

Again - not really, no.

See, i need to prepare a defence as it's not looking like they're going to reply at all to say whether they're dropping the case or not, so i need to start thinking of getting everything ready in the event i end up in court. If not then no big deal, if i do then i'll be ready.

And "because Tom Mix on the internet told me so", correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think that'll stand as much of a defence.

Yet if Tom Mix knows documentation that helps the case then great stuff, i can use it.

Such as what Logician did there. Thanks Logician.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Thu, 23 May 2019 - 08:03
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,228
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (Logician @ Wed, 22 May 2019 - 23:47) *
QUOTE (Penf0ld @ Wed, 22 May 2019 - 21:40) *
well no but that doesn't really answer the question does it. Can anyone provide legal documentation that says you do not have to wear glasses/contacts/monocles or have had corrective surgery or whatever other workaround anyone cares to mention if there's an "01" marker on your card? Anything i find says that you have to. So i must be looking in the wrong places because people are saying here that you do not have to and that this is the basis of my appeal. So since it's likely i'm going to end up in court then i would like to see what documentation these forum members are reading when they're getting this information that i've been unable to find because it could help me a lot.


It appears to me that s.92(5) RTA 1988 has the effect that if a driving licence is to be issued requiring the driver to comply with any condition because of a physical disability, the SoS (in practice the DVLA) "must serve notice in writing to that effect on that person and must include in the notice a description of the disability" So if you have not been served with such a notice, and I do not think a code on your licence would count as a notice, then your licence is not subject to that condition.


I agree. The existence of code 121 (restricted to conditions specified in the Secretary of State’s notice) seems to support your interpreation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penf0ld
post Sat, 8 Jun 2019 - 17:02
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,512



Just to post back with an outcome for those who helped and also in case anyone can get anything from this in future who may find it in a search or whatever.

The police wrote to say they'll look in to it and i don't need to do anything further.

They then wrote back again yesterday to say that basically in the circumstances they wont be taking it any further.

I just want to say thanks to those who helped. I know i was having a bit of a worry earlier on. I was just concerned it'd all go wrong. Thankfully it didn't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Sat, 8 Jun 2019 - 23:49
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,996
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



Thanks for letting us know the outcome, that is always helpful.


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



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: Monday, 24th June 2019 - 14:28
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.