Disgruntled
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 - 11:54
I received an NIP, dated March 17th 2006 for a speeding offence committed on March 15th 2006 in Nottingham. (I was doing 38mph in a 30 zone.) I believed that this conviction should not be enforced as it was in breach of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 that states that a system of street lighting furnished by lamps should not be placed more than 200 yards apart. (I actually measured this and it proved to be more than this measurement.) I also argued poor signing and the fact that there were no speed limit or camera signs.
Upon reading this I contested the offence with written evidence and photographs to support mitigating circumstances. I also filled in the NIP admitting that I was the driver and then sent it back along with the mitigating evidence.
I received a letter dated 7/4/2006 form Nottinghamshire police explaining that the matter would be forwarded onto the law clerks for their consideration and that if the prosecution was to proceed, I would be sent a summons in due course.
I ignored this letter as I thought it a a B&B in an attempt to try and scare me. Four months have passed and today I received a summons for Court on 11/9/2006.
Surely, I should have been sent a COFP first?!?!
I wrote my mitigating letter, but at no point did i say that I wouldn't pay the fine, at that stage I was just arguing the fact and expecting them to go through the motions of sending out a COFP in the next instance.
Should a COFP be sent after the NIP as par the course?
It is incorrect (and possibly illegal) that they have not stuck to the procedure of - issuing NIP, then issuing COFP, then summons (they have skipped the COFP part.)
Is it possible that they are skipping this step to try and comply with the 6 month rule and therefore are committing an abuse of process?
I'm very worried about what to do next, as the summons has the standard paperwork where I can reply with a Guilty or Not Guilty plea by post, but I do not want to reply to this without first being given the chance to either change my mind and pay a COFP or turn it down. They have totally missed out part of the process!
Any advice on this is appreciated.
The Rookie
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 - 11:55
A CoFP will normally be sent, but they are not as I understand it under any obligation to do so, its also possible given what you told them, that they considered a CoFP to be a waste of time and money!
Simon
Disgruntled
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 - 11:58
So where does this leave me now?
andy_foster
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 - 12:13
How far apart were the streetlights? Was it a case that an odd pair were too far apart, or were a signiifcant number of them too far apart?
If you decide not to fight the charge, you might be able to argue that you should have been offered a COFP becuase everyone else caught at that speed would have been, and that you would have accepted it if it had been offered.
If the court accepts that, the case would not be thrown out for abuse of process, but you would receive 3 points, £60 fine and no costs - the same is if you'd been offered and accepted a COFP.
Disgruntled
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 - 12:18
There were two streetlamps (one pair) that were too far apart on the stretch of road.
Disgruntled
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 - 12:57
Is this case still worth fighting on the lampost issue?
andy_foster
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 - 13:04
IMHO de minimis (the law does not concern itself with trifles) would apply.
Rallyman72
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 - 17:22
COFP also depends on the speed at which you are alleged to have been travelling. Over a certain threshold and it will go straight to summons.
Disgruntled
Thu, 31 Aug 2006 - 09:35
No, it won't be anything to do with the speed. It's because I wrote an occompanying mitigation letter, so they've took it upon themselves to proceed straight to a summons rather than taking the next step to a COFP.
I spoke to a civilian working at the ticket office who said that this would have been a mistake.
Unless I specifically asked for a court hearing in the letter (which I didn't) then I shouldn't have been sent a summons.
It's just a bit frustrating when you get treated like some kind of criminal for a few lousy miles over the speed limit, when it wasn't even indicated clearly in the first place!
The Rookie
Thu, 31 Aug 2006 - 11:38
Keep to the point.......you now say it wasn't indicated clearly, what do you mean by that? if you were caught near the lamps to far apart it would be worth a try on, but how far from them where you where you were snapped?
Simon
Disgruntled
Thu, 31 Aug 2006 - 12:23
I've given up on it now. I've sent the paperwork back and I'm going to take the punishment.
I can't be bothered anymore. Life is too short. (I believe I was too far away from the lamposts when I was snapped for it to be watertight anyway.)
Thanks for your advice though, I've given it the best shot I possibly can and I think there comes a point when you have to admit defeat.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.