Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: i got issed a pg9!"
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
richard18
hi, i got pulled over tonight for no reason at all, the police had a good look round my car (its abit of an old banger) and they found my rear shock obsobers to be defective. they then said i cannot drive the car home so i had to call the AA to bring the car home.

anyway the police issued me a pg9 and said i may or may not be summond to court for the offence of driving a defective vehicle.

i am very worried because i had no idea my rear shocks were defective and i have only had my liecence for 9 months and i dont want to loose it. what do you think will happen? am i likely to get 6 points?!
Pete D
I did not know the cops were qualified mechanics. If you think the car is OK then get it MOTed, if it passes, at least on the shochers then you have a defence against the potential charge. Pete D
jobo
i know from my own experiance

you can have extremely shagged shoxs and still get an mot as the only thing they fail on is leaking fluid

youl need to get it done to lift the pg9 anyway
Teufel
get an inspection done - an indep one form AA or RAC has more force
than a garage
richard18
yes, the shocks were leaking fluid because the coppers showed me. btw they were traffic cops and they can give out pg9s.

anyway because the car wasent worth much i just scrapped it. so my original question... how many points am i looking at.
Teufel
destroying evidence isnt going to help your case much !
richard18
rofl, how is it destroying evidence? i didnt HAVE to have the car re-moted. only if i wished to use the car again.

as for destroying evidence i could have easily replaced the shocks before i got the car mot'd.
jobo
youve destroyed your evidence, just coz the shox have a defective seal dosnt make them dangerous,

now if they come with a C&U dangerous parts rap, youve got no chance of defending your self with an independent report which is what you were advised to do

spanner345
QUOTE (jobo @ Sun, 22 Mar 2009 - 13:49) *
i know from my own experiance

you can have extremely shagged shoxs and still get an mot as the only thing they fail on is leaking fluid

youl need to get it done to lift the pg9 anyway

Not true, shock absorbers must be effective, a weep of fluid is acceptable.

Whether a leak is a weep includes a large "grey area" in between a miniscule weep and a substantial weep, largely up to the tester.
richard18
does anyone no how many points im gonna get?
glasgow_bhoy
Likely that they will not bother purusiing it any further, otherwise I think it would be 3 points
quickboy
QUOTE (richard18 @ Sun, 22 Mar 2009 - 04:35) *
the police issued me a pg9 and said i may or may not be summond to court for the offence of driving a defective vehicle.

A PG9 sounds similar to a GV9 for HGVs etc, issued by VOSA or traffic police. Normally the fault will be listed and the driver or company is given a certain amount of time to have it rectified. The vehicle then needs to be inspected to prove the fault has been fixed. Has this not happened in your case? Penalty points are not normally issued for this sort of thing.
richard18
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Mon, 23 Mar 2009 - 19:57) *
Likely that they will not bother purusiing it any further


what makes you say this?
Dhutch
I have no experence in this at all, however i have to say i would not have scraped the car, but would instead have got in inspected.

 - Eather by a local garage (mot, or written confirmation of condition of rear shots on leader headed)


 - Or by organising a 3rd party inspection by someone like the AA. (inc condition of shocks)



Proberbly the garage/option as it proberbly more likely to give the right result at a guess.



When was the car last MOT'ed - Presuming it passed, was there any advisorys on shock condition?







Daniel

richard18
no there wasent any advisorys for uit
Mouse
Hi guys...I thought I'd let you know on this one..

Police forces have VE's, otherwise known as Vehicle Examiners. These Officers have been on courses that allow them to carry out inspections of vehicles and look at faults on vehicles including brakes, tyres and other defects that are basic to vehicle safety. These courses are recognised. On inspection, if a fault is discovered, then the qualified VE can issue what is called a PG9.

A PG9 is a vehicle prohibition, which prevents the vehicle being used on the road until such time that the fault is fixed. You would have been given paperwork at the roadside which would explain to you the procedure in getting the vehicle back on the road. If your vehicle was that dangerous then the Officer may decide to prosecute you for dangerous driving.

There are no points, prosecution etc for PG9 unless the point above was raised.
southpaw82
Or prosecute for any of the number of construction and use offences that can lead to the prohibition of a vehicle (the form is a PG9). Dangerous driving would be at the top end of the scale. Vehicle in dangerous condition or a straight con and use is more likely.

(Been there, done that).
richard18
Ok i just got court summons through the post, this is because i was caught driving a car with rear shock absobers in a defective condition.

what i want to know is how many points i am looking at? i am a new driver so 6 points for me and its back to school!

also i have the choise to plead guilty by post, does this mean they arnt considering a driving ban?

thanks all help appriciated happy.gif
nemo
You've started a duplicate thread!

QUOTE (richard18 @ Wed, 29 Apr 2009 - 00:14) *
what i want to know is how many points i am looking at?

Conviction for using a vehicle in a dangerous condition (s40A RTA 1988) is 3 points. The endorsement code (as would be applied to an offender's licence) is CU20.

QUOTE (richard18 @ Wed, 29 Apr 2009 - 00:14) *
..does this mean they arnt considering a driving ban?

Unless there were some serious aggravating factors associated with the alleged offence, then I doubt that the court would consider imposing a ban.

For information, the magistrates do have the discretion to impose a period of disqualification for this offence, although not in circumstances where the offender proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that use of the vehicle involved a danger of injury to any person.
The Rookie
Just to be clear, what alleged offence is actually given in the summons?

Simon
richard18
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 30 Apr 2009 - 01:49) *
Just to be clear, what alleged offence is actually given in the summons?

Simon



driving a motor vehicle in a condition dangerous to others (or something like that, i sent the summons back off now so i cant read it)
nemo
QUOTE (richard18 @ Thu, 30 Apr 2009 - 06:50) *
driving a motor vehicle in a condition dangerous to others (or something like that, i sent the summons back off now so i cant read it)

I imagine it would have been something similar to 'used a motor vehicle in a dangerous condition such that the use of the motor vehicle involved a danger of injury to any person', contrary to s.40A Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
richard18
QUOTE (nemo @ Thu, 30 Apr 2009 - 07:32) *
QUOTE (richard18 @ Thu, 30 Apr 2009 - 06:50) *
driving a motor vehicle in a condition dangerous to others (or something like that, i sent the summons back off now so i cant read it)

I imagine it would have been something similar to 'used a motor vehicle in a dangerous condition such that the use of the motor vehicle involved a danger of injury to any person', contrary to s.40A Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.




yep your spot on mate, so is that still 3 points or something diffrent
nemo
QUOTE (richard18 @ Thu, 30 Apr 2009 - 07:51) *
QUOTE (nemo @ Thu, 30 Apr 2009 - 07:32) *
I imagine it would have been something similar to 'used a motor vehicle in a dangerous condition such that the use of the motor vehicle involved a danger of injury to any person', contrary to s.40A Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.


yep your spot on mate, so is that still 3 points or something diffrent

Provision creating offence: Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 40A.
General nature of offence: Using vehicle in dangerous condition etc.
Mode of prosecution: Summarily.
Punishment:
(a) Level 5 on the standard scale (max £5,000) if committed in respect of a goods vehicle or a vehicle adapted to carry more than eight passengers.
(b) Level 4 on the standard scale (max £2,500) in any other case.
Disqualification: Discretionary.
Endorsement: Obligatory.
Penalty points: 3
richard18
okay thanks nemo, i pleaded guilty by post so they shouldnt be able to disqualify me should they?

also does getting a disqualification mean ill have to re-take my driving test? ohmy.gif
nemo
QUOTE (richard18 @ Fri, 1 May 2009 - 11:55) *
okay thanks nemo, i pleaded guilty by post so they shouldnt be able to disqualify me should they?

Theoretically they could, albeit extremely unlikely that they would IMHO.

In terms of sentencing, whether or not you knew (or had any reason to suspect) that your shocks were defective might be very important.

QUOTE (Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988)
48. Exemption from disqualification and endorsement for certain construction and use offences.

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (using vehicle in dangerous condition etc) the court must not—

(a) order him to be disqualified, or
(b) order any particulars or penalty points to be endorsed on the counterpart of any licence held by him,

if he proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that the use of the vehicle involved a danger of injury to any person.


QUOTE (richard18 @ Fri, 1 May 2009 - 11:55) *
also does getting a disqualification mean ill have to re-take my driving test? ohmy.gif

Not unless you are ordered to so by the court, no.


richard18
is that likely?
jobo
not unless you punch one of them
richard18
QUOTE (jobo @ Fri, 1 May 2009 - 14:41) *
not unless you punch one of them



hahaha laugh.gif
jobo
have you read nemo comments about your possible defence of not knowing about the defect( and not reasonable that you should know)
richard18
i have already pled guilty to the offence, but in my mitigating circumstances i put something along the lines of: i had no idea they were like it, but as the driver of the vehicle i understand its my responsiblity ect ect.

(basicly took the easy way out to get the lowest penalty possible)
jobo
dont want to pick but the lowest points was 0, you can change your plea, and if the LA is any good they will take your comments as a not guilty plea

and you wernt gettingt more than 3 anyway
richard18
so what will happen if i dont change my plea? tbh i REALLY dont want to go through the hassle of pleading not guilty, i know its stupid but i just dont belive going to court and saying 'i didnt know' is going to get me off the hook.

as long as i only get 3 points and dont loose my liecence i will put it behind me and be more careful in future
nemo
You wouldn't change your plea - s.48 RTOA 1988 does not provide a defence; its effectively Special Reasons not to endorse or disqualify.

You would still plead guilty but, if you could prove to the court that you were genuinely unaware (and had no reasonable grounds upon which to suspect) that use of the vehicle involved a danger of injury to any person, then you would be exempt from endorsement and / or disqualification - but not from conviction, costs, fine or Victim Support Surcharge.
jobo
i dont know

they will probably just wave it through, 3 points and a couple of 00 quid

if they bother to read it and realise youve got a viable defence and then tell you so, and you say dont care i want to plead guilty anyway, not sure that its ever happened before ?
richard18
if they write back telling me i have a defence then i will change my plea to not guilty, otherwise ill avoid having to go to court

nemo
QUOTE (richard18 @ Fri, 1 May 2009 - 15:43) *
how would i prove that i was unaware?

By giving a statement to that effect under oath.

But if you were aware of the defect (and the fact that to use the vehicle involved a risk of injury to any person), then the special reasons would not be available to you.


QUOTE (richard18 @ Fri, 1 May 2009 - 15:43) *
if they write back telling me i have a defence then i will change my plea to not guilty,

As above, s48 RTOA 1988 does not provide a defence. It provides special reasons for the court not to endorse your licence or impose a period of disqualification.
jobo
well it depend on what it was

say you brakes dont work, how could you not know unless they malfunctioned at the exact moment the police tested them


or you steering faulty and it wont turn left

would a competent driver be expected to know that the back shox had a leak, if that what it was, you never did tell us what was up with them

so how obviously faulty was it and is it reasonable that you had no idea
richard18
ok basicly the seal had cracked on both rear shocks and ALL the fluid had leaked out.

(im 99.9% sure i must have bought the car in that condition)
jobo
how did the police know that ALL the oil had leaked out, you were advised to get it checked

and could you drive the car in the above condition with out realising it

i think you could but you would need to convince the mags
nemo
QUOTE (richard18 @ Fri, 1 May 2009 - 15:57) *
ok basicly the seal had cracked on both rear shocks and ALL the fluid had leaked out.

And you had no reason at all to suspect that was the case ?

How did the car handle ?

Why did the police officer home in on the shockers ? Had the car sagged on its suspension ? Did he observe odd ride characteristics of your vehicle when he was following you ?
richard18
ok this is how it went: the copper was going in the opposite direction of me, then he saw me and turned round and followed me for NO reason. after about 5 mins he pulled me over and said the back end of my car was 'bouncing all over the place' (BULLSHIT I THINK I WOULD HAVE NOTICED) anyway he looked at the shocks and continued to show me what was wrong and the seal had indeed cracked open on both shocks.

but before any of this happened i didnt know about it.. although to be fair there was a fair bit of body roll in corners at speed. but im no mechanic.
jobo
it sounds like a defence to me

see what other think
nemo
QUOTE (jobo @ Fri, 1 May 2009 - 16:23) *
it sounds like a defence to me

Its not a defence - it could amount to special reasons not to endorse / disqualify.

Whether or not the magistrates would view a statement from the officer that 'the back end of the defendant's car was bouncing around all over the place' as evidence that the driver must have (or should have) been aware of the defect and, in turn, the fact that that could have involved a danger of injury etc, would remain to be seen.

Black Rat
QUOTE (richard18 @ Fri, 1 May 2009 - 16:17) *
after about 5 mins he pulled me over and said the back end of my car was 'bouncing all over the place' (BULLSHIT I THINK I WOULD HAVE NOTICED) anyway he looked at the shocks and continued to show me what was wrong and the seal had indeed cracked open on both shocks.


Why do you state it's "bullshit"?

The police saw your car stopped it and pointed out the suspension looked defective. Examined the car and guess what? It was. rolleyes.gif

Did you happen to not notice the crystal ball on their dash too?

The only thing I can add is I hope he showed you his written authority from the Chief Constable before you allowed him to examine you car.
jobo
QUOTE (nemo @ Fri, 1 May 2009 - 16:34) *
QUOTE (jobo @ Fri, 1 May 2009 - 16:23) *
it sounds like a defence to me

Its not a defence - it could amount to special reasons not to endorse / disqualify.



yea ok SRNtE

8. Exemption from disqualification and endorsement for certain construction and use offences.

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (using vehicle in dangerous condition etc) the court must not—

(a) order him to be disqualified, or
(b) order any particulars or penalty points to be endorsed on the counterpart of any licence held by him,

if he proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that the use of the vehicle involved a danger of injury to any person.


so it would seem running with your guilty plea but mitigating with the above may be the way to go
richard18
do you think its best done in court? because ive already done what your suggesting above, pleading guilty but mitigating i didnt know.. only by post.
nemo
QUOTE (richard18 @ Sat, 2 May 2009 - 15:24) *
do you think its best done in court?

Yes.
The Rookie
Ever seen a car on the motorway with the back wheel hopping, do you think the driver is aware of that and still driving, no, and its a failed shock that causes that, had it on an old Montego, other than feeling a bit vague you couldn't tell until I hit a section of old ridged concrete motorway when it felt positively frightening. When that shock came off, even inverted all that leaked out was bubbles!

Simon
captain swoop
QUOTE (richard18 @ Fri, 1 May 2009 - 16:17) *
ok this is how it went: the copper was going in the opposite direction of me, then he saw me and turned round and followed me for NO reason. after about 5 mins he pulled me over and said the back end of my car was 'bouncing all over the place' (BULLSHIT I THINK I WOULD HAVE NOTICED) anyway he looked at the shocks and continued to show me what was wrong and the seal had indeed cracked open on both shocks.

but before any of this happened i didnt know about it.. although to be fair there was a fair bit of body roll in corners at speed. but im no mechanic.



Why do you think he followed you for no reason? He obviously thought there was a reason and told you what it was, when he checked he was right and you even say above that 'there was a fair bit of body roll'
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.