Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: M25 EPPING, NR M/POST 5563A - variable speed limit
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Plasticcouch81
My wife got a NIp stating she was doing 68mph exceding a variable speed limit of 50mph
by NR M/POST 5563A

She is convinced there where not variable speed limit sign up at the time, and the fact she was doing 68 suggests the road was clear.

how can i find out if the gantry signes were on?

googling the gantry number flags up alot of freedom in information requests for the same gantry number. could it be afaulty and catching people incorectly??
Spinstorm
I don’t want to sound unhelpful but it’s more likely she just didn’t see the 50 mph variable limit. On the M25 sometimes they go up for no apparent reason - I am sure there is one but it’s just not obvious - and I often find myself crawling along at 50 when others are shooting past at 70 or higher but I know that there are cameras and so I’m extra careful.

I hate the M25 for that reason but realistically your wife missed the restriction. Just take the points and learn from it.
ohnoes
QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 12:09) *
My wife got a NIp stating she was doing 68mph exceding a variable speed limit of 50mph
by NR M/POST 5563A

She is convinced there where not variable speed limit sign up at the time, and the fact she was doing 68 suggests the road was clear.

how can i find out if the gantry signes were on?

googling the gantry number flags up alot of freedom in information requests for the same gantry number. could it be afaulty and catching people incorectly??



I believe that is a HADECS3 camera, which is mounted to the side of a gantry and takes a picture of the limit displayed overhead at the time it is triggered.

You can ask for a photo to aid in identifying the driver which may confirm the limit (make sure you ask for it as an aid to identifying the driver at the time of the offence rather than 'evidence').
Plasticcouch81
QUOTE (ohnoes @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 12:18) *
QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 12:09) *
My wife got a NIp stating she was doing 68mph exceding a variable speed limit of 50mph
by NR M/POST 5563A

She is convinced there where not variable speed limit sign up at the time, and the fact she was doing 68 suggests the road was clear.

how can i find out if the gantry signes were on?

googling the gantry number flags up alot of freedom in information requests for the same gantry number. could it be afaulty and catching people incorectly??



I believe that is a HADECS3 camera, which is mounted to the side of a gantry and takes a picture of the limit displayed overhead at the time it is triggered.

You can ask for a photo to aid in identifying the driver which may confirm the limit (make sure you ask for it as an aid to identifying the driver at the time of the offence rather than 'evidence').



How do you ask for the photo? e-mail or is it on the form??
cp8759
QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 12:30) *
How do you ask for the photo? e-mail or is it on the form??

If you have an email address for them, send them an email. If not, send them a letter in the post.
Jlc
J23 to J27 have HADECS3 - as noted there's an auxiliary camera that also snaps the displayed limit for the avoidance of doubt.

They don't have to provide the photo but usually do.

That excess is eligible for a fixed penalty (3 points £100) - be careful before rejecting this. At court the potential penalty is higher 4-6 points (4 likely) along with costs and surcharge.

It is more likely the limit was displayed but I understand the need to be sure...
Plasticcouch81
Emailed CREEST and they are sending photos in the post. Will be interesting to see what it shows

Jlc
QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:34) *
Will be interesting to see what it shows

A 50mph limit displayed, probably. wink.gif
mickR
Did the Nip not have photos on it Anyway??
Fredd
QUOTE (mickR @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 18:12) *
Did the Nip not have photos on it Anyway??

Well presumably not, or the OP wouldn't be asking the question. Some NIPs do have small pictures printed on, most don't.
mickR
QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 18:26) *
QUOTE (mickR @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 18:12) *
Did the Nip not have photos on it Anyway??

Well presumably not, or the OP wouldn't be asking the question. Some NIPs do have small pictures printed on, most don't.


The one my friend got did. From the same smart section of m25
Plasticcouch81
The NIP had no photographic information

It came from The Casualty Reduction & Enforcement Support Team ( C R E E S T )

They have sent out photos after i emailed asking for help identifying the driver.

Just want to check all is present and correct before commiting to points or a SAC
peterguk
QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 11:07) *
Just want to check all is present and correct before commiting to points or a SAC


Remember any photos supplied at this stage are to identify the vehicle, not prove the offence.
ohnoes
QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 11:07) *
The NIP had no photographic information

It came from The Casualty Reduction & Enforcement Support Team ( C R E E S T )

They have sent out photos after i emailed asking for help identifying the driver.

Just want to check all is present and correct before commiting to points or a SAC


Did it show a gantry/speed limit?
jdh
QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:34) *
Emailed CREEST and they are sending photos in the post. Will be interesting to see what it shows

Smart motorway, plastered in technology supported up by a back office staff of stamp lickers.
Plasticcouch81
Click to view attachmentRecieved the photos back.

No sign of any speed restrictions? nor any proof of speeding....

Clearly the motorway was empty and you can see our blue car is in the slow lane

what to do?
peterguk
QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 12:59) *
what to do?


Your choice - take the CoFP or lose that option and go to court. Same points but bigger fine, costs and surcharge.
Logician
Clearly there has been some reason to change the limit because it was changed 14 minutes previously, whether up or down we do not know.

Did any of the FOI requests you saw lead to the then limit being stated or any useful information?

No device is absolutely free from the possibility of any fault but we are told that the cameras and signs are so interlinked that it should be impossible for the camera to enforce a limit that is not displayed. Your wife going to court and saying she saw no limit sign is unlikely to result in an acquittal so taking the CoFP is the pragmatic course. If it is any consolation it is not, legally, the admission of an offence.
Plasticcouch81
I agree i would just take the punishment and be done......

need to purchase a incar camera
Jlc
That is a HADECS3 shot but they haven't supplied the auxiliary shot (if there is one).

See here for the full set example.
mickR
Yes, hence my previous post confirming photos weren't on the OPs nip.
Plasticcouch81
My Wife got caught on the M25 27/01/2018doing 68mph when the variable speed limit was 50mph.

Letter came through from Essex Police 02/002/2018 intention to prosecute and asking for the driver identity

we sent off the driver identity etc then the fine came through £100 and three points so we paid the fine and sent the Driving licence off.

a few week later she got a summons for faliure to send off the driving licence, and becuse it wasn't sent registered we had no proof but we had paid the fine.

She spoke with somone at the courts who said to enter a guilty plea and say you paid the fine and sent the license of and you'll just get the 3 points and they will refund the original fine and send you a new one.

Just recived a new letter with a fine of £413 and four points!!!

this seem underhand and unfair considering we did everything properly and they lost the driving licence, so we have to also apply for a new licence too!!

whats peoples thoughts on what we should do???
Jlc
You can either appeal the sentence (but have a limited time to do this) or write to the court and ask them to reopen the case under s142 MCA:

QUOTE
The Clerk to the Justices
xxxx Magistrates Court

Dear Sir/Madam

On DD MMM 2018 I was convicted of an offence of speeding, fined £413 and given four penalty points. I am writing to request that the case be re-opened under s142 Magistrates' Courts Act as it is in the interests of justice to do so. The reason for this is that the court failed to follow the guidance given in the Magistrates Courts Sentencing Guidelines on page 453 regarding cases where a fixed penalty notice was available. I was offered a Fixed Penalty Notice for the speeding offence but was unable to take this up because my licence was lost in the post. This was an administrative reason unconnected with the offence, the circumstances covered by the guideline referred to above and therefore the starting point for consideration of sentence should have been the equivalent of the fixed penalty, not the guideline for speeding offence, as appears to have been the case.


The wording is here:

QUOTE
where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence
itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point
should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be
imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in
these circumstances.


I presume it was a SJPN rather than summons - they seem to have overlooked your comments but perhaps it wasn't clear enough.
The Rookie
I presume you didn't explain to the court in the written response that the driving licence was sent and had been lost? (or at least in a way that was obvious) If you didn't the court would sentence according to the normal guidelines. If you didn't tell them who would?

You can contact the court, explain the situation and ask if they will re-open the case in the interest of justice (something they can do under the magistrates court act) and submit they only apply the fixed penalty tariff as the reason the fixed penalty wasn't taken up was for reasons unconnected with the offence (they have specific guidance on that they could have followed had they known).
Plasticcouch81
I will check with the missus
but i'm sure she pointed out to the courts the fine had been paid and the license sent off but essex police claimed they had not recieved it

should we pay the other fine in the meantime or wait for a response?

we only have unitl the 6/08/18
Jlc
QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 08:40) *
but i'm sure she pointed out to the courts the fine had been paid and the license sent off but essex police claimed they had not recieved it

It would have helped to have explicitly pointed the sentencing guidelines out.

QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 08:40) *
should we pay the other fine in the meantime or wait for a response?

No - the court has to take action (or you, well your Wife, has to appeal).
notmeatloaf
Also going forward with this do not take advice from court staff - they are well meaning but not legally trained. It's like calling your GP surgery and having a 10 minute consultation with the receptionist.
The Rookie
QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 08:40) *
should we pay the other fine in the meantime or wait for a response?

we only have until the 6/08/18

Chase them, but if not resolved by then pay the fine (the licence will also have to be surrendered or it will be revoked) and continue to try and get it resolved.
cp8759
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 11:31) *
Also going forward with this do not take advice from court staff - they are well meaning but not legally trained. It's like calling your GP surgery and having a 10 minute consultation with the receptionist.

+1
roythebus
I regularly use the top of the M25 at night and the variable speed limits are often left on for no reason at all. It is common at the Potters Bar junction 24 clockwise to see a camera flash on the speed sign gantry, then the following gantry shows blank, meaning the limited speed lasts until the Dartford Crossing where there is a 60 sign!

I've emailed highways England several times regarding this misleading information and usually get the same bland reply. Very often there is no visible reason for there to be a speed limit.
Plasticcouch81
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 13:50) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 11:31) *
Also going forward with this do not take advice from court staff - they are well meaning but not legally trained. It's like calling your GP surgery and having a 10 minute consultation with the receptionist.

+1


The guy on the phone at the courts seems to think they did take into account the fact the licence was lost as the fine was £413 and not £900??

if the case is re opened can they increase the fine again or add more points??
Jlc
Did you submit a statement of means? (MC100)

The usual sentence for that excess would be 4 or maybe 5 points. A fine of 66% of relevant (post deductions) weekly earnings, costs of £85 and a surcharge of 10% of the fine (min £30).

So if your weekly earnings submitted were £450, then this would be around £297+£85+£30=£412.

QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 16:31) *
The guy on the phone at the courts seems to think they did take into account the fact the licence was lost as the fine was £413 and not £900??

laugh.gif As noted above, the court staff can be well meaning but are so so wrong...

QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 16:31) *
if the case is re opened can they increase the fine again or add more points??

Yes, it can work either way.
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 16:31) *
if the case is re opened can they increase the fine again or add more points??

Yes but practically not greatly unless your wife's income is more than £450 a week as noted by Jlc.

However the magistrates sentencing guidelines are that they sentence at fixed penalty level if one cannot be taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence. So if you adequately draw attention to the circumstances, and a polite reminder of the sentencing guidelines that Jlc has linked you to, they would be ignoring their own guidance if they did. And generally magistrates stick very closely to their sentencing guidelines.

They will not increase the fine merely to "punish" you for asking for the case to be reopened. You aren't playing doubles or quits.

The most likely outcome should be £100 fine + £85 costs + £30 victim surcharge + 3 points.
Jlc
Best possible outcome could be 3 points, £70 fine, £30 surcharge and no costs order.
notmeatloaf
I think that is incredibly unlikely to happen. The victim surcharge is a required by the CJA 2003, not a guideline. They would be going against the law and their own sentencing guidelines if they transparently reduced the fine - which they had already set at £100 because of the sentencing guidelines - simply to absorb an obligatory surcharge.

The only permitted exceptions are to prioritise compensation if a defendant cannot afford to pay both, or if they are making an order under the Mental Capacity Act. Those are very narrow exceptions and do not apply in this case.
Jlc
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 21:52) *
I think that is incredibly unlikely to happen.

But it does.
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 22:46) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 21:52) *
I think that is incredibly unlikely to happen.

But it does.

Example?

I don't doubt it does very very occasionally but you might as well say best result is acquittal because the magistrates thought you were a lovely person, or the prosecutor was on coke, or you are a skilled hypnotist. You'd get good odds on it.
NewJudge
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 17:57) *
Best possible outcome could be 3 points, £70 fine, £30 surcharge and no costs order.



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 21:52) *
I think that is incredibly unlikely to happen. The victim surcharge is a required by the CJA 2003, not a guideline. They would be going against the law and their own sentencing guidelines if they transparently reduced the fine - which they had already set at £100 because of the sentencing guidelines - simply to absorb an obligatory surcharge.

The only permitted exceptions are to prioritise compensation if a defendant cannot afford to pay both, or if they are making an order under the Mental Capacity Act. Those are very narrow exceptions and do not apply in this case.

It happens in at least two areas that I know of. The standard procedure when sentencing at the Fixed Penalty level is £70 fine, £30 VS and no costs. The guidance on sentencing at the FP level includes the phrase that the defendant should not be disadvantaged as a result of being unable to accept a Fixed Penalty. To charge him more than £100 would clearly put him at a disadvantage. (I think we've covered this before).
Plasticcouch81
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 16:50) *
Did you submit a statement of means? (MC100)

The usual sentence for that excess would be 4 or maybe 5 points. A fine of 66% of relevant (post deductions) weekly earnings, costs of £85 and a surcharge of 10% of the fine (min £30).

So if your weekly earnings submitted were £450, then this would be around £297+£85+£30=£412.

QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 16:31) *
The guy on the phone at the courts seems to think they did take into account the fact the licence was lost as the fine was £413 and not £900??

laugh.gif As noted above, the court staff can be well meaning but are so so wrong...

QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 16:31) *
if the case is re opened can they increase the fine again or add more points??

Yes, it can work either way.



We did not fill out a MC100, however my wifes earnings are alot less than 450!! she only does three days a week

Jlc
QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 14:17) *
We did not fill out a MC100

Then default court figure would have been used - currently £440. (Which is close enough to explain the £413).

Has the court been contacted yet?
The Rookie
QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 14:17) *
We did not fill out a MC100, however my wifes earnings are alot less than 450!! she only does three days a week

To be honest that was pretty daft. The only time it's worth 'forgetting' to fill it out is when the earnings are over the £440 nominal. Does that mean she didnt bother informing the court about the lost licence as well?
Plasticcouch81
the court have been contacted by letter and e-mail but have not responded to either ??

and we only have until the 6th of this month to pay!!
nosferatu1001
Have you tried in person? or phone?
Plasticcouch81
yeah but only get through to the court staff
The Rookie
Who did you expect to get through to?

Have you asked them what’s happening?
Logician
QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 14:17) *
We did not fill out a MC100, however my wifes earnings are alot less than 450!! she only does three days a week


How did you expect the court to be aware of that if you did not tell them?

cp8759
QUOTE (Plasticcouch81 @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 13:17) *
yeah but only get through to the court staff

Did you think the chief magistrate would speak to you personally?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.