PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Extreme alleged offence, do I have a case?
ripzay
post Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 17:52
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 5 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,195



Hi all

On the 22nd November 2020 at 11:20am I was pulled over by officers in an unmarked police car.

They tested my dirty passenger window for tint level and it came back with three values under 30..

I've received a conditional offer of fixed penalty today (posted on the 23rd Dec) stating that there is evidence that I committed the offence of 'Use a motor vehicle / trailer in a condition likely to cause danger of injury'

Now, I'm not trying to 'get away' with anything here, but I believe the offense that I'm alleged to have committed is rediculously excessive.
Honestly I had no idea the tints were even remotely illegal, but I know ignorance is not a defence - I'd happy pay a fine for illegal tints if that's what the test machine evidence shows, but I begrudge it being called dangerous, and endorsable!

The reasons I believe I have a case here for a lesser punishment, or for it to be thrown out completely:
1) if the officers believed that my vehicle was dangerous, should then not have issued a immediate prohibition and prevented me from continuing on? (they didn't)
2) Regardless of what the test machine says, any reasonable person would not consider them to be dangerous in broad daylight on a clear sunny day - my sunglasses let less light in and they would be perfectly safe and legal)
3) these tints have been fitted to the vehicle for over 2 years, close to 3, in which I have covered over 30000 miles, if they were LIKELY to cause injury, would that not have happened by now?

I think I'm going to contest the allegation but this isn't something I've done before so some reassurance that I'm doing the right thing would be helpful.

I believe that the alleged offense should actually be
'Use a Motor Vehicle on a Road When There Was Insufficient Transmission of Light Through the Vehicle Glass (Eg Tinted Windows)'

I have attached a before and after photograph taken with the same Iso, F-stop and shutter speed, in similar light and visibility to the time of the alleged offence. This shows the affect that the tints have on visibility during the day.

Thanks in advance

This post has been edited by ripzay: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 11:32
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 17:52
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
666
post Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 18:09
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,882
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



The whole point of using a testing device is to give an objective reading rather than an opinion.

The only way you can challenge this is to go to court, where your subjective opinion will be up against the evidence of the two police officers with their objective test results. Failure will see an income-related fine, costs of £620 and a victim surcharge (10% of fine, minimum £34).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 18:51
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,480
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Such allegations are in regards of Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 contrary to 32(10).

A transmission of less than 30% would be considered the most serious.

They could pursue a C&U offence under s42 Road Traffic Act 1988 which is a catch all for items not related to steering, tyres or brakes. (Which is non-endorsable)

However, seems like they consider the matter more serious and are pursuing under s40a RTA for which it is endorsable.


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

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 19:17
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,948
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



You say that the passenger window was dirty, so tint on its own may not be excessive, but is so in combination with dirt on the window. How bad was the dirt?

It is difficult to argue against the reading of their measuring device.

This post has been edited by Logician: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 19:20


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ripzay
post Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 19:34
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 5 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,195



QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 19:17) *
You say that the passenger window was dirty, so tint on its own may not be excessive, but is so in combination with dirt on the window. How bad was the dirt?

It is difficult to argue against the reading of their measuring device.


It was pretty salty, however I'm not actually arguing with the reading from their device, I'm arguing that at the time of the alleged offence given the visibility and light levels, that the tints couldn't possibly be classed as dangerous, and thus I should be accused of a different contravention. (the tint one which carries a non-endirsable fine, rather than the stated one which carries the 3 points)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 19:46
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,930
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



Then I think your only option is to allow the matter to go to court and plead not guilty. You might like to see if you can get hold of the weather forecast for the day to establish whether it was going to remain bright and sunny all day. Presumably you didn't plan to drive after about 4pm, by which time it would have begun to get fairly dark.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ripzay
post Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 20:00
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 5 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,195



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 19:46) *
Then I think your only option is to allow the matter to go to court and plead not guilty. You might like to see if you can get hold of the weather forecast for the day to establish whether it was going to remain bright and sunny all day. Presumably you didn't plan to drive after about 4pm, by which time it would have begun to get fairly dark.


Good suggestion, I can confirm that it did stay bright and sunny all day (as per the met office daily weather summary), and also I can prove categorically that i only drove during daylight hours on that day because my vehicle has a tracker on it.

(not really relevant to my case, but incidentally, the police allowed me to go on my way to my destination - which is the only place my tracker data shows me going, and the tracker also came up in my discussion with the officers - they said that it was a nice car and that they hope I'm careful with it, I told them it was tracked)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 20:21
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,403
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (ripzay @ Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 20:00) *
(not really relevant to my case, but incidentally, the police allowed me to go on my way to my destination - which is the only place my tracker data shows me going, and the tracker also came up in my discussion with the officers - they said that it was a nice car and that they hope I'm careful with it, I told them it was tracked)

I think this is relevant actually. I don't think a police officer would allow you to continue your journey if the journey was likely to cause danger of injury. If the police officers did not think such a danger was likely, the court might have some difficulties in finding that such a danger was likely based on evidence given by those same officers. Could make for some interesting cross.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TryOut
post Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 22:50
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 7 May 2019
Member No.: 103,734



QUOTE (ripzay @ Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 20:00) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 19:46) *
Then I think your only option is to allow the matter to go to court and plead not guilty. You might like to see if you can get hold of the weather forecast for the day to establish whether it was going to remain bright and sunny all day. Presumably you didn't plan to drive after about 4pm, by which time it would have begun to get fairly dark.


Good suggestion, I can confirm that it did stay bright and sunny all day (as per the met office daily weather summary), and also I can prove categorically that i only drove during daylight hours on that day because my vehicle has a tracker on it.

(not really relevant to my case, but incidentally, the police allowed me to go on my way to my destination - which is the only place my tracker data shows me going, and the tracker also came up in my discussion with the officers - they said that it was a nice car and that they hope I'm careful with it, I told them it was tracked)

The regulations don’t say you can have tinted windows as long as it’s a bright day. They say you can’t tint your windows beyond a certain level.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GAZ237
post Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 23:20
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 14 Dec 2008
Member No.: 24,831



QUOTE (ripzay @ Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 20:00) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 19:46) *
Then I think your only option is to allow the matter to go to court and plead not guilty. You might like to see if you can get hold of the weather forecast for the day to establish whether it was going to remain bright and sunny all day. Presumably you didn't plan to drive after about 4pm, by which time it would have begun to get fairly dark.


Good suggestion, I can confirm that it did stay bright and sunny all day (as per the met office daily weather summary), and also I can prove categorically that i only drove during daylight hours on that day because my vehicle has a tracker on it.

(not really relevant to my case, but incidentally, the police allowed me to go on my way to my destination - which is the only place my tracker data shows me going, and the tracker also came up in my discussion with the officers - they said that it was a nice car and that they hope I'm careful with it, I told them it was tracked)


New Judge was toying with you.

Your windows were tested and failed. That's it, they failed, to say they were not dangerous at the time because it was a bright sunny day, is frankly quite absurd.

Then you put the icing on the cake saying you was home before it got dark and can prove it.

What will you say if they ask you if you have ever driven the car in the dark in the 2+ years since they fitted?.

The tracker will come in handy to prove you have never driven in bad light or the dark in the 30k miles you have said you have driven with the tints.

If you want to have a beef with anyone, go back to the company that fitted the tints and ask them to replace them for free, for the legal ones you didn't like, as they were not dark enough.

This post has been edited by GAZ237: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 23:24
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 00:04
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,948
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (TryOut @ Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 22:50) *
The regulations don’t say you can have tinted windows as long as it’s a bright day. They say you can’t tint your windows beyond a certain level.


Indeed, but the officers did not measure the tint of the windows, they measured the light transmission through the tinted windows covered in salt, and did not charge him with having windows tinted beyond the permitted level but with using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. The question that then arises is whether the dangerous condition would be obvious to a careful and competent driver, and it could well be the case that on the day in question, being bright and sunny, the OP could see perfectly clearly though the window, whereas he might not have been able to do so on a dull day or at night.


QUOTE
to say they were not dangerous at the time because it was a bright sunny day, is frankly quite absurd.


Well no, it isn't, the question is whether the window was dangerous at the time, not at some other time. As above, the charge the OP faces is not having overly tinted windows but driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition. The fact that the officers allowed the OP to continue driving is strong evidence that actually they did not consider the vehicle was dangerous. It may be that the decision maker later decided to go for a more serious charge when actually that was not justified.



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ripzay
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 07:44
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 5 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,195



QUOTE (Logician @ Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 00:04) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Tue, 5 Jan 2021 - 22:50) *
The regulations don’t say you can have tinted windows as long as it’s a bright day. They say you can’t tint your windows beyond a certain level.


Indeed, but the officers did not measure the tint of the windows, they measured the light transmission through the tinted windows covered in salt, and did not charge him with having windows tinted beyond the permitted level but with using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. The question that then arises is whether the dangerous condition would be obvious to a careful and competent driver, and it could well be the case that on the day in question, being bright and sunny, the OP could see perfectly clearly though the window, whereas he might not have been able to do so on a dull day or at night.


QUOTE
to say they were not dangerous at the time because it was a bright sunny day, is frankly quite absurd.


Well no, it isn't, the question is whether the window was dangerous at the time, not at some other time. As above, the charge the OP faces is not having overly tinted windows but driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition. The fact that the officers allowed the OP to continue driving is strong evidence that actually they did not consider the vehicle was dangerous. It may be that the decision maker later decided to go for a more serious charge when actually that was not justified.



Exactly my thoughts..

I am not contesting the evidence at all, in all honesty I had no clue that they were illegal, I had the rears windows tinted dark and the fronts tinted much, much less, and (wrongly) assumed that they were legal, I was ignorant and never asked - my bad, and if I were being accused of that I would take it on the chin. but this is not what I'm being accused of, I'm being accused of driving a car at 11:20 on 22/11/2020 that was likely to cause danger of injury, which is absolutely NOT the case.

For example:
The DVSA issue guidance to their operatives that state that if light transmission is less than 30% (as per constructions and use legislation) that an Immediate Prohibition is to be applied to the vehicle, police policy on the matter should be the same.

The DVSA also issue guidance (and actually recommend) the use of category 1, 2 and 3 sunglasses in bright sunlight, category three sunglasses can let as LITTLE as 9% of light through. how can 9% light transmission through sunglasses be 'safe', but (for arguments sake) 25% light transmission through a side window be 'dangerous'

I repeat, I am not saying my tints were legal, I'm not saying that their evidence is wrong, what I'm saying is that you cannot come to the conclusion that it was dangerous from their evidence alone, their evidence proves that my tints and dirty glass were letting less than 30% of light through, and nothing more.

This post has been edited by ripzay: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 07:52
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 08:05
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46,910
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I'm with CP and Logician on this, if the officers didn't consider the car to be dangerous (and therefor allowed him to continue when they should not if it was dangerous) then why should the OP be prosecuted for believing it was dangerous* and continuing anyway.

The Police can't have it both ways and I suspect that their TOR response team just takes level of tint and goes to a spreadsheet and it says 'prosecute for dangerous' rather than them considering the facts of the case as they should.

*It having come to his attention the tints are unlawful a careful and competent driver will take note of whether the car is dangerous to continue the journey with or not, the Police 'suggesting' it is not is clearly a factor in this.


--------------------
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
TMC Towcester
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 08:05
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 540
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



I think you're tilting at windmills here!

The light lvel is set by law and AFAIK the law doesn't differentiate between ambient light on the day of the test. However, you've said already you've had them for a long time so it's vanishingly unlikely youve not used the car at night/lesser ambient light. After all an offense is committed when it is committed, not only in the course of committing it.

Huge probable cost facing you as above., with a low chance of success.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 08:20
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46,910
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



But that level sets a specific offence and that is NOT an offence of driving a car in a dangerous condition. Would 69% transmission be in a dangerous condition?

Its like saying driving a car without an MOT is driving a car in a dangerous condition because it may be dangerous having no MOT (with no proof it is dangerous), it's misusing a more serious offence and not using the specific offence for the action. Heck why not just use dangerous condition for every C&U or similar offence eh? Headlight blown = dangerous as you may use it at night.......

This is the offence alleged. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/40A

The Prosecution have to prove that the tints were not just illegal but where ALSO dangerous, merely being illegal doesn't make them dangerous which depends on the circumstances not just one fact.

No-one is disputing a C&U prosecution would succeed, but that's not the issue.


--------------------
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
Logician
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 14:34
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,948
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 08:05) *
I think you're tilting at windmills here!

The light lvel is set by law and AFAIK the law doesn't differentiate between ambient light on the day of the test. However, you've said already you've had them for a long time so it's vanishingly unlikely youve not used the car at night/lesser ambient light. After all an offense is committed when it is committed, not only in the course of committing it.

Huge probable cost facing you as above., with a low chance of success.


You are ignoring the fact that at the time the window was tested it was covered in salt so it was not just the tint that was measured, it was tint plus a covering of salt. No doubt the car was used at night with the same tint, but was it used at night with the tint and the salt?


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 14:49
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,403
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 08:05) *
The light lvel is set by law and AFAIK the law doesn't differentiate between ambient light on the day of the test. However, you've said already you've had them for a long time so it's vanishingly unlikely youve not used the car at night/lesser ambient light. After all an offense is committed when it is committed, not only in the course of committing it.

But the police would have to prove that use of the vehicle was dangerous at the time the offence is alleged to have taken place (i.e. when the vehicle was allowed by those same officers to continue on its journey), they can't just turn up and say the vehicle was probably used at some point during the hours of darkness, at some unknown time and date, at some unknown location.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 15:26
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 540
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 14:49) *
QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 08:05) *
The light lvel is set by law and AFAIK the law doesn't differentiate between ambient light on the day of the test. However, you've said already you've had them for a long time so it's vanishingly unlikely youve not used the car at night/lesser ambient light. After all an offense is committed when it is committed, not only in the course of committing it.

But the police would have to prove that use of the vehicle was dangerous at the time the offence is alleged to have taken place (i.e. when the vehicle was allowed by those same officers to continue on its journey), they can't just turn up and say the vehicle was probably used at some point during the hours of darkness, at some unknown time and date, at some unknown location.


I read it that the light measuring device said it was more tinted than the law allows. I don't think that changes the penetration of light based on the surrounding light? Need an expert in physics!

Like speeding, there's a limit and it's either within it or it isn't?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 15:32
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,403
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 15:26) *
I read it that the light measuring device said it was more tinted than the law allows. I don't think that changes the penetration of light based on the surrounding light? Need an expert in physics!

Like speeding, there's a limit and it's either within it or it isn't?

I think you must have missed a few posts, maybe re-read the whole thread? The OP is not being charged with the tint offence, he's being charged with using a vehicle in a dangerous condition, which is a different offence.

It's a bit like being stopped for speeding and then being charged with dangerous driving: yes many dangerous driving cases will involve speeding, but not all speeding offences amount to dangerous driving, so just saying the accused was doing 35 in a 30 cannot, on its own, lead to a dangerous driving conviction. Similarly the tint may well have been illegal, but that does not mean that the vehicle was "in a condition likely to cause danger of injury'.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 15:45
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 540
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 15:32) *
QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Wed, 6 Jan 2021 - 15:26) *
I read it that the light measuring device said it was more tinted than the law allows. I don't think that changes the penetration of light based on the surrounding light? Need an expert in physics!

Like speeding, there's a limit and it's either within it or it isn't?

I think you must have missed a few posts, maybe re-read the whole thread? The OP is not being charged with the tint offence, he's being charged with using a vehicle in a dangerous condition, which is a different offence.

It's a bit like being stopped for speeding and then being charged with dangerous driving: yes many dangerous driving cases will involve speeding, but not all speeding offences amount to dangerous driving, so just saying the accused was doing 35 in a 30 cannot, on its own, lead to a dangerous driving conviction. Similarly the tint may well have been illegal, but that does not mean that the vehicle was "in a condition likely to cause danger of injury'.


I see your point but would hate someone who burgled your home to be let off because he wasn't doing it at the point he was apprehended................
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: Wednesday, 27th January 2021 - 22:48
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.