PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

speeding fine sent to old address
hollycoker
post Tue, 12 Jan 2021 - 08:54
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 12 Jan 2021
Member No.: 111,207



Hello
i have a company car and got caught speeding 17th November. i heard nothing until this week when i found out that the police had sent the letter stating speeding 40mph in a 30 to my old address which i moved out of August 2017 and have moved again since then. I only knew about the letter as the house owner gave the letter to my ex. I had changed my address with work and with the DVLA and have had new license for new address and previous address since i moved from address letter was sent to.
As this is a lease car i am wondering if the lease company still have my old address on a file for some reason as i did update it?
Question is do i hold my hands up declare i received letter from new address with police or put it in the bin and deny ever seeing it?

Any advice would be great many thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 11)
Advertisement
post Tue, 12 Jan 2021 - 08:54
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Tue, 12 Jan 2021 - 09:12
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 520
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



The only way to know is to ask the leasing company! The answer will almost certainly be 'yes' -particularly as you changed ONLY your licence and employment records, by implication you didn't tell the leaseco?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Suziboy
post Tue, 12 Jan 2021 - 09:34
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 9 Aug 2020
Member No.: 109,369



For 40 in a 30, you will most likely be offered a speed awareness course (no points and £88) or at worst, 3 points and £100 fine.

Double-check the details to make sure that it was you driving at the date and location stated in the paperwork. If it all looks correct, just fill in the form and return it, it's not worth messing around. Yes, it looks like the leasing firm had the wrong address for you, but you've now received the documents anyway so it would be counter-productive to try and deny any knowledge of them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BertB
post Tue, 12 Jan 2021 - 10:52
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 14 Nov 2011
Member No.: 51,087



Putting it in the bin will see you end up in court filing a statutory declaration after you receive 6 points and a fine in your absence for failure to furnish drivers details.

You have it now, the route of less hassle will be to fill in the drivers correct details and return, possibly with a covering letter pointing out the change of address. Keep a copy of the completed form and get proof of posting.

You will need to do your own checks to find out why it has gone to your old address. The usual route for leased company cars would be finance/lease co, employer, employee.

Either way, the force itself would not know that this is your old address and will serve the request for drivers details on whatever address they are given. Any chucking of documents in the bin will only see you inconvenienced more, as well as financially penalised to a greater extent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackcross
post Tue, 12 Jan 2021 - 22:18
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 26 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,487



Best not ignore it, particularly if fessing up now is likely to result in a course.

If you ignore it and end up with 6 points you might be able to bargain it down to 3 points by then admitting to the speeding, but the option of a course will be long gone.

As part of the stat dec you would be asked to confirm when you became aware of the matter. If you say anything other Jan ‘21 you would be lying on oath, with the risk that your family then have to get used to visiting you in prison.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 12 Jan 2021 - 22:53
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,502
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (blackcross @ Tue, 12 Jan 2021 - 22:18) *
As part of the stat dec you would be asked to confirm when you became aware of the matter. If you say anything other Jan ‘21 you would be lying on oath, with the risk that your family then have to get used to visiting you in prison.

Case, not matter - I understand that to be any prosecution, commenced by SJPN, not any NIP/s 172 notice. This is supported by s 16E(3)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, which says

QUOTE
the accused makes a statutory declaration that the accused did not know of the single justice procedure notice or the proceedings until a date that the accused specifies in the statutory declaration


Unless the OP has received an SJPN, they don't appear to be at risk of a false declaration. Depends what they have received.


--------------------
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
blackcross
post Wed, 13 Jan 2021 - 20:32
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 26 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,487



[/quote]
Unless the OP has received an SJPN, they don't appear to be at risk of a false declaration. Depends what they have received.
[/quote]

OP may, or may not, choose to confirm what has been received. For the sake of argument let’ s assume it is a s172 in their name. In which case the only answer they can give on oath without lying is that they were aware of the s172 request by 12 Jan ‘21.

This post has been edited by blackcross: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 - 20:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 13 Jan 2021 - 20:43
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,502
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (blackcross @ Wed, 13 Jan 2021 - 20:32) *

Unless the OP has received an SJPN, they don't appear to be at risk of a false declaration. Depends what they have received.
QUOTE
OP may, or may not, choose to confirm what has been received. For the sake of argument let’ s assume it is a s172 in their name. In which case the only answer they can give on oath without lying is that they were aware of the s172 request by 12 Jan ‘21.

Ok. And? I don’t believe the statutory declaration requires them to say anything about the s 172, does it?


--------------------
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
blackcross
post Yesterday, 01:03
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 26 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,487



[/quote]
I don’t believe the statutory declaration requires them to say anything about the s 172, does it?
[/quote]

That may depend on where the stat dec is made. A friendly solicitor won’t ask anything awkward, other than for their fee.

If done in court then our LAs, and the bench, tend to ask questions about when the person before us became aware of the alleged failure to furnish and/or speeding and to offer an explanation of why their version of events is likely to be true. They answer on oath, so are obliged to answer truthfully or risk a worse outcome if caught out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Yesterday, 01:34
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,502
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (blackcross @ Fri, 15 Jan 2021 - 01:03) *
QUOTE

I don’t believe the statutory declaration requires them to say anything about the s 172, does it?


That may depend on where the stat dec is made. A friendly solicitor won’t ask anything awkward, other than for their fee.

If done in court then our LAs, and the bench, tend to ask questions about when the person before us became aware of the alleged failure to furnish and/or speeding and to offer an explanation of why their version of events is likely to be true. They answer on oath, so are obliged to answer truthfully or risk a worse outcome if caught out.

Well, the requirements are set out in the Act and, to be fair, they shouldn’t be cross-examined as to the declaration - they should either make it under penalty of perjury or not. Push comes to shove, I don’t think they’re obliged to answer any questions put to them. That aside, they only have to be able to truthfully declare that they were not aware of the SJPN or proceedings - their knowledge of any NIP or s 172 notice doesn’t seem relevant to that. I can’t see how a person could be convicted of perjury for making a declaration that they had no knowledge of the SJPN or proceedings when all they had received was a s 172 notice. Such an approach just isn’t supported by the law.

PS: I don’t charge a fee for acting as a commissioner, it’s too much hassle for too little reward.


--------------------
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
NewJudge
post Yesterday, 13:00
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,906
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (blackcross @ Fri, 15 Jan 2021 - 01:03) *
If done in court then our LAs, and the bench, tend to ask questions about when the person before us became aware of the alleged failure to furnish and/or speeding and to offer an explanation of why their version of events is likely to be true. They answer on oath, so are obliged to answer truthfully or risk a worse outcome if caught out.

Then your court is acting incorrectly.

As sp says, the person (or court) hearing the SD is simply witnessing the declaration, not tasked with establishing its truthfullness. The SD form used by courts (which sp usefully provided in his post on SDs) says this:

"The person who hears the declaration need not enquire into the truth of it. That person’s function is limited to hearing the declaration, and certifying that he or she has
done so by signing it. If the declaration turns out to be untrue, the defendant making it may be punished for perjury."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Yesterday, 14:54
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,935
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



It used to be the custom to make enquiries as to the circumstances, that changed some time back in the 1990's. It sounds as though the memo never reached blackcross's court!


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Saturday, 16th January 2021 - 14:09
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.