I am summoned to court on tuesday next under section 172(3) road traffic act & schedule 2 road traffic offenders act 1988.
Attached to summons were photo evidence of my car travelling at 63mph in a 50 area.
I have written to the court stating that (and can prove) I was out of the country days prior to & after the date of offence.
My car was for sale at the time of the offence, I understand from my wife that a couple and there daughter arrived at my home and requested a test drive, their insurance policy covered "to drive any car with the owners permission" these people did not purchase my car as final price was non negotiable" we did not have a reason to record their names or addresses.
The decision maker was telephone and informed of the situation as soon as I was aware of the offence. He hand delivered larger photos to my home in the hope I could identify the driver. He acknowledged the fact I had a new car with my private plate reassigned.
He was told (re telecon) that I was not in a position to idendify the driver as we never met. His comments were" unfortunately the buck stops with me" and issued the summons.
I have written to the court stating all of the above details.
The decision makers statement, as you would expect is a one sided view and lacks any mention of the true facts, telephone calls or visits to my home, but states that:
a) the intended prosecution notice was not returned idendifiying the
driver. (true but misleading)
B) He also states a reminder was sent but not identifying the driver.
All correspondence has been dealt with properly, but I cannot identify the driver.