Hi,
I've got past the NIP stage, and now have a conditional offer of fixed penalty notice. I'm considering paying up (clean licence for 10 years so 3 points and £60 is an irritation, not a crisis) but I'm VERY aggrieved about the circumstances of my "speeding"
The camera was a Gatso, on the A508, near Kelmarsh in Northants. Sited just over a blind brow, about 1/4 mile off the junction with the A14. Speed limit is 40mph, well signposted off the junction (I missed it) but the road looks and feels like a national speed limit road (single-carriageway, so 60mph). For most of its length it is indeed deristricted, except through towns & villages. In this case, the 40mph restriction has been extended well beyond the village boundary (probably over half a mile), and there are no repeater signs to remind you that the limit is 40. I was flashed at 49mph. I'd seen the camera, but couldn't see any speed signs, and the road is typical of the rural 60-limit roads I spend a lot of time on, so I didn't slow and was appalled when I got flashed.
My point is this: I've requested, from Northants county council, and Northants police, details of the reasons for siting that camera there. Not had a reply, yet and the deadline for accepting the fixed penalty is almost up. I'm wondering whether to challenge either the decision to site the camera, or the decision to set the speed limit at 40 not 60.
If I do decide to challenge these, have I got a leg to stand on? I assume a Judicial Review might be necessary. If so, I also assume that having suffered demonstrable loss (i.e. the fine and penalty points) might be a necessary part of the justification for any court case.
Any comments or advice would be greatly appreciated. I don't have resources or skills to take this sort of action unaided, and would be greatly concerned about running the risk of defendant's costs if I lost. But I'm riled about what I see as blatant rigging of the rules to site a camera where it can trap innocent people like me.
Thanks,
Steve
Full Version: Is it worth challenging the siting of camera?
The siting of the camera is neither here nor there.
If there are no street lights (no more than 200 yards apart) and the speed limit signage doesn't comply with the relevant regs, then the limit is unenforceable (s.85(4)RTRA 1984).
If there is a system of street lighting, you would need to demonstrate that you were reasonably misled by the defective signage.
If there are no street lights (no more than 200 yards apart) and the speed limit signage doesn't comply with the relevant regs, then the limit is unenforceable (s.85(4)RTRA 1984).
If there is a system of street lighting, you would need to demonstrate that you were reasonably misled by the defective signage.
QUOTE
I'm wondering whether to challenge either the decision to site the camera
Taking this route would not invalidate the charge, the Partnership have guidelines to follow known as 'ACPO guidelines', they can flout them if they wish knowing full well that there can be no legal challenge to them. This could only succeed in hurting them financially if you complain that they are breaking the 'netting off' rules but unfortunately will not stop them prosecuting.
QUOTE
or the decision to set the speed limit at 40 not 60.
Could be mileage in this, depends upon the signage as there are rules surrounding this. Others will have more knowledge of this in particular jeffryarcher amongst others.
Have you since revisited the scene? have you taken any pictures? we will need this sort of info to help ascertain whether the signs were lawful,
Also read the 'READ THIS FIRST' page as there could be other discrepancies to exploit, we will need the required fields set out in that page to help,
Cheers,
Matt
Thanks,
lots of useful advice, much appreciated.
I haven't revisited the scene; incident in Northants, I live in Manchester. I was travelling there on business and haven't had the opportunity to go back since. I did retrace my steps from the junction with the A14 at the time, because I was so shocked. That's when I discovered the 40mph signage, on the junction. There are no further signs between the junction and the camera, approx 1/4-1/3 mile from memory, but I could check this distance when I do get to revisit it, and no street lighting. No speed limit signs visible on approach to the camera's "target zone" either (I looked the moment I saw the camera, couldn't see any signs, checked my speed - indicated 51-52 - and carried on. At this point I was still accelerating away from the junction.)
I admit I missed the signs at the A14 junction, when I went back they were obvious enough. I'd been concentrating on traffic at the junction and they simply didn't register. Not a defence, I know, but somehow it doesn't seem fair. I know, I know, since when was the law about fairness...?
Would you recommend I pay up, or should I wait for my day in court? I realise that would probably lead to a higher fine, and accept that risk if it comes to it.
Steve
lots of useful advice, much appreciated.
I haven't revisited the scene; incident in Northants, I live in Manchester. I was travelling there on business and haven't had the opportunity to go back since. I did retrace my steps from the junction with the A14 at the time, because I was so shocked. That's when I discovered the 40mph signage, on the junction. There are no further signs between the junction and the camera, approx 1/4-1/3 mile from memory, but I could check this distance when I do get to revisit it, and no street lighting. No speed limit signs visible on approach to the camera's "target zone" either (I looked the moment I saw the camera, couldn't see any signs, checked my speed - indicated 51-52 - and carried on. At this point I was still accelerating away from the junction.)
I admit I missed the signs at the A14 junction, when I went back they were obvious enough. I'd been concentrating on traffic at the junction and they simply didn't register. Not a defence, I know, but somehow it doesn't seem fair. I know, I know, since when was the law about fairness...?
Would you recommend I pay up, or should I wait for my day in court? I realise that would probably lead to a higher fine, and accept that risk if it comes to it.
Steve
Did you send the PACE letter or did you sign the NIP?
Did the NIP ask for the info 'for and on behalf of the chief constable'?
Cheers,
matt
Did the NIP ask for the info 'for and on behalf of the chief constable'?
Cheers,
matt
Hi,
I signed the NIP, which was signed on behalf of the Chief Constable. I didn't supply my drivers licence details because I didn't have it available at the time, but I identified myself as the driver and have received a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty. The details are broadly correct (a minor typo in the address of no significance).
Steve
I signed the NIP, which was signed on behalf of the Chief Constable. I didn't supply my drivers licence details because I didn't have it available at the time, but I identified myself as the driver and have received a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty. The details are broadly correct (a minor typo in the address of no significance).
Steve
It's a shame that you can't revisit the scene.
If e.g., there were no repeaters in the 40 MPH limit, that would be a defence, becasue the regulations state that there must be 'regular' repeaters.
Unfortunately, distances are only DfT guidelines, so they'd probably have to be far out from the guidelines to help you.
As it is, there appears to be only one missing (the first one, max. 250m. in) before you were caught. A bit of a long shot, I think.
You'd have to revsit the site and establish that that was a part of other errors, I think.
If e.g., there were no repeaters in the 40 MPH limit, that would be a defence, becasue the regulations state that there must be 'regular' repeaters.
Unfortunately, distances are only DfT guidelines, so they'd probably have to be far out from the guidelines to help you.
As it is, there appears to be only one missing (the first one, max. 250m. in) before you were caught. A bit of a long shot, I think.
You'd have to revsit the site and establish that that was a part of other errors, I think.
Developments to the above:
when I looked closer (on day 26 of the allotted 28 days for response) I found that the conditional offer of fixed penalty had a tear-off counterfoil at the bottom, whose purpose was unclear. Elsewhere in the document it stated
"if you wish to accept the conditional offer of fixed penalty, please read the instructions overleaf and follow them carefully"
there was nothing overleaf. The page was blank. There was no other documentation supplied, so I was unable to comply with the instructions, not having been provided with them. I wrote back to them, and explained this. I have now received a copy of the conditional offer, and a covering letter, admitting that
"due to an administrative error, the information sheet was not printed on the reverse of the conditional offer, for which we offer our apologies"
It goes on to state that, if I wish to accept the conditional offer, I must send my licence & payment "within the 28 days provided by the original notice".
The original notice was issued on 17th May, I responded on 13th June and received this response (dated 22 June) on 24th June. Clearly I can't accept the conditional offer within the 28 days provided by the original, nor could I have done so at the time they wrote this letter to me.
Is there any mileage in using this "administrative error" as either a delaying tactic, or better still a claim that proper procedure has not been followed, etc? Should I write back, explaining that I can't comply with the original conditional offer as they didn't provice me with the means to do so, and can no longer do so due to time elapsed, or should I shut up and use this if and when a summons arrives?
Grateful for any advice.
Steve
when I looked closer (on day 26 of the allotted 28 days for response) I found that the conditional offer of fixed penalty had a tear-off counterfoil at the bottom, whose purpose was unclear. Elsewhere in the document it stated
"if you wish to accept the conditional offer of fixed penalty, please read the instructions overleaf and follow them carefully"
there was nothing overleaf. The page was blank. There was no other documentation supplied, so I was unable to comply with the instructions, not having been provided with them. I wrote back to them, and explained this. I have now received a copy of the conditional offer, and a covering letter, admitting that
"due to an administrative error, the information sheet was not printed on the reverse of the conditional offer, for which we offer our apologies"
It goes on to state that, if I wish to accept the conditional offer, I must send my licence & payment "within the 28 days provided by the original notice".
The original notice was issued on 17th May, I responded on 13th June and received this response (dated 22 June) on 24th June. Clearly I can't accept the conditional offer within the 28 days provided by the original, nor could I have done so at the time they wrote this letter to me.
Is there any mileage in using this "administrative error" as either a delaying tactic, or better still a claim that proper procedure has not been followed, etc? Should I write back, explaining that I can't comply with the original conditional offer as they didn't provice me with the means to do so, and can no longer do so due to time elapsed, or should I shut up and use this if and when a summons arrives?
Grateful for any advice.
Steve
Defective COFP, eh? Potentially very interesting.
Dorset seem to haev a problem with them at the moment - link here.
If you can scan, host and post the defective COFP and subsequent correspondance (with personal details removed), or type up everything in the defective COFP and subsequent correspondance (with personal details removed), some of the regulars might be able to help.
Dorset seem to haev a problem with them at the moment - link here.
If you can scan, host and post the defective COFP and subsequent correspondance (with personal details removed), or type up everything in the defective COFP and subsequent correspondance (with personal details removed), some of the regulars might be able to help.
Steve,
Your next move depends on how far you want to push this. Do you want to go to court and challenge the speeding? I would if I were you - little to lose, and much to gain.
If you don't want to accept the COFP, then I would just do nothing. Perhaps you say later that the corrsepondence you received suggested it was too late to accept the COFP?
Your next move depends on how far you want to push this. Do you want to go to court and challenge the speeding? I would if I were you - little to lose, and much to gain.
If you don't want to accept the COFP, then I would just do nothing. Perhaps you say later that the corrsepondence you received suggested it was too late to accept the COFP?
Hi,
thanks for the ongoing advice, latest development: I've now returned from a trip away, and received a warning that my case is being passed to the CPS for possible summons, etc. This less than 28 days after receiving the corrected COFP. I'm quite happy to go to court, I'd quite like to have my say anyway, but do you think that, in court, I'd have a valid argument that I wasn't given the opportunity to respond to the COFP in 28 days as specified?
In which case, would they just back-track and give me another 28 days, or is there any procedural or valid reason why I could argue for having it thrown out at that point?
Also, assuming I do go to court, I understand the penalty is likely to be greater than the fixed penalty & 3 points. Any indication of how much greater?
thanks again,
Steve
thanks for the ongoing advice, latest development: I've now returned from a trip away, and received a warning that my case is being passed to the CPS for possible summons, etc. This less than 28 days after receiving the corrected COFP. I'm quite happy to go to court, I'd quite like to have my say anyway, but do you think that, in court, I'd have a valid argument that I wasn't given the opportunity to respond to the COFP in 28 days as specified?
In which case, would they just back-track and give me another 28 days, or is there any procedural or valid reason why I could argue for having it thrown out at that point?
Also, assuming I do go to court, I understand the penalty is likely to be greater than the fixed penalty & 3 points. Any indication of how much greater?
thanks again,
Steve
QUOTE (steve071261)
I've now returned from a trip away, and received a warning that my case is being passed to the CPS for possible summons, etc. This less than 28 days after receiving the corrected COFP.
Keep that letter safe – are you aware of this recent case?
QUOTE (Mika @ Jul 4 2005, 08:36 AM) 
QUOTE (steve071261)
I've now returned from a trip away, and received a warning that my case is being passed to the CPS for possible summons, etc. This less than 28 days after receiving the corrected COFP.
Keep that letter safe – are you aware of this recent case?
OK,
it's been a while, but my court date is set for 13th Jan, at Daventry Mags. I'm intending to go, explain that the initial (faulty) documentation was insufficient to allow me to respond to the COFP, and the response was too late to permit me to do so within the time limit they themselves set me. The fact that they gave me until a date prior to the date of their reply in order to accept the COFP, to my initial response to the COFP is surely evidence of incompetence?
Do you think this, in itself, will be sufficient to have the case thrown out, or should I be looking to back this up with more rigorous argument? I'm not a lawyer, or particularly well versed in legal practice, but I'm fairly articulate and well-educated and feel reasonably confident in explaining my point of view, from a lay perspective. I'd therefore very much appreciate any observations or advice.
Thanks, in anticipation,
Steve
QUOTE (steve071261 @ Jan 6 2006, 09:33 AM)
Hi,
Offence, England,
April 2005,
Northamptonshire Constabulary,
NIP sent & received within 14 days, Registered Keeper is company, of which I am a director. I responded to it within the stipulated timescale, naming myself as driver (hadn't heard of Pepipoo at that time)
I hold UK licence, clean since 1993 despite 50K miles p/a.
Court hearing scheduled for Fri 13th Jan. Daventry Mags.
Events as follows:
Left A14 for A508 near Market Harborough, A14 is 70mph dual-carriageway, A508 is rural A-road, no lights, assumed 60mph national speed limit. Actually is 40 limit, as signed at the top of the slip-road from A14. I missed the speed limit signs, was busy assessing traffic in order to safely leave the junction.
Accelerating away from junction, travelled perhaps 1/4 mile, saw the camera 100m ahead, no visible confirmation of speed limit (i.e. no repeaters visible at the point where the camera comes into view). Checked speed, indicated 50mph, still accelerating (it's a van, OK...) assumed National Speed Limit, continued as planned. Flash! Some shock and awe... Stopped, retraced steps to junction, discovered 40mph sign, plain as day, at the T-junction off the slip road. Some mild expletives may have slipped out at this point.
So far, so typical. I've been suckered into getting a flash. Such is life. there may be some mileage in challenging the validity of the speed limit (no lights, no apparent repeaters) but the issue I'm interested in is as follows:
Having returned the NIP, received the COFP, which is superficially OK, except that the reverse side is blank. The reverse side is supposed to contain the procedures for complying with the COFP, and the first page contains the instruction "read the instructions on the back of this notice and follow them carefully". There is a counterfoil at the bottom of the page, but no return addresses.
See attachement "Northants COFP"
I respond with a letter to the PO box in the letterhead, within the 28 days advising that I can't comply.
See attachment "COFP"
Receive a response, admitting the admin error, re-stating the requirement to comply within the original 28 days, which have by now elapsed, and enclosing a duplicate COFP with the relevant details on the reverse.
See attachment "Error Response".
I've transcribed the relevant documentation as I received it, and my response, plus their letter, and attached.
I'd very much appreciate opinions or comments as to whether this gives me grounds to request it be dropped, when I go to court at the end of next week.
Thanks in advance
Offence, England,
April 2005,
Northamptonshire Constabulary,
NIP sent & received within 14 days, Registered Keeper is company, of which I am a director. I responded to it within the stipulated timescale, naming myself as driver (hadn't heard of Pepipoo at that time)
I hold UK licence, clean since 1993 despite 50K miles p/a.
Court hearing scheduled for Fri 13th Jan. Daventry Mags.
Events as follows:
Left A14 for A508 near Market Harborough, A14 is 70mph dual-carriageway, A508 is rural A-road, no lights, assumed 60mph national speed limit. Actually is 40 limit, as signed at the top of the slip-road from A14. I missed the speed limit signs, was busy assessing traffic in order to safely leave the junction.
Accelerating away from junction, travelled perhaps 1/4 mile, saw the camera 100m ahead, no visible confirmation of speed limit (i.e. no repeaters visible at the point where the camera comes into view). Checked speed, indicated 50mph, still accelerating (it's a van, OK...) assumed National Speed Limit, continued as planned. Flash! Some shock and awe... Stopped, retraced steps to junction, discovered 40mph sign, plain as day, at the T-junction off the slip road. Some mild expletives may have slipped out at this point.
So far, so typical. I've been suckered into getting a flash. Such is life. there may be some mileage in challenging the validity of the speed limit (no lights, no apparent repeaters) but the issue I'm interested in is as follows:
Having returned the NIP, received the COFP, which is superficially OK, except that the reverse side is blank. The reverse side is supposed to contain the procedures for complying with the COFP, and the first page contains the instruction "read the instructions on the back of this notice and follow them carefully". There is a counterfoil at the bottom of the page, but no return addresses.
See attachement "Northants COFP"
I respond with a letter to the PO box in the letterhead, within the 28 days advising that I can't comply.
See attachment "COFP"
Receive a response, admitting the admin error, re-stating the requirement to comply within the original 28 days, which have by now elapsed, and enclosing a duplicate COFP with the relevant details on the reverse.
See attachment "Error Response".
I've transcribed the relevant documentation as I received it, and my response, plus their letter, and attached.
I'd very much appreciate opinions or comments as to whether this gives me grounds to request it be dropped, when I go to court at the end of next week.
Thanks in advance
apologies for starting new thread, thought the other forum might be more appropriate. However, in moving the posting, relevant attachments appear to have been lost. As the original thread contained a request for transcripts, I re-attach, below.
TIA, etc,
TIA, etc,
The defective COFP is unlikely to get you off.
I suspect that what will happen is that the Mags will fine £60 + 3 points and refuse CPS costs - which would put you in the same psoition as having accepted the COFP.
I suspect that what will happen is that the Mags will fine £60 + 3 points and refuse CPS costs - which would put you in the same psoition as having accepted the COFP.
QUOTE (patdavies @ Jan 6 2006, 01:25 PM)
The defective COFP is unlikely to get you off.
I suspect that what will happen is that the Mags will fine £60 + 3 points and refuse CPS costs - which would put you in the same psoition as having accepted the COFP.
I suspect that what will happen is that the Mags will fine £60 + 3 points and refuse CPS costs - which would put you in the same psoition as having accepted the COFP.
I wondered about that. Decided that going to court was either win or draw, couldn't lose because I could argue they should not be able to increase the penalty above the fixed-penalty value as I was prevented from taking that up, being effectively forced to attend court anyway. At least this way, the camera partnership doesn't get the money.
But I'm aware of other cases where faulty paperwork (e.g. not signed on behalf of Chief Constable, etc) caused cases to be dropped, and was therefore wondering if anybody could advise me regarding an appropriate form of words to try, while arguing my point.
Thanks
If you scan the entire bundle (or type up everything), edit out personally identifiable details and post, we can have a look for any possible fatal flaws.
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Fri, 6 Jan 2006 - 21:56)
If you scan the entire bundle (or type up everything), edit out personally identifiable details and post, we can have a look for any possible fatal flaws.
That's pretty much it, I'm afraid. The second COFP they sent me had instructions as to how to complete the form, and where to send it, on the reverse, but that's about all.
QUOTE (steve071261)
Court hearing scheduled for Fri 13th Jan. Daventry Mags.
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Fri, 6 Jan 2006 - 21:56)
If you scan the entire bundle (or type up everything), edit out personally identifiable details and post, we can have a look for any possible fatal flaws.
QUOTE (steve071261)
That's pretty much it, I'm afraid. The second COFP they sent me had instructions as to how to complete the form, and where to send it, on the reverse, but that's about all.
You've had a court hearing scheduled, but had not communications (e.g. summons, evidence bundle, etc.) after the second COFP?
u said this..
In this case, the 40mph restriction has been extended well beyond the village boundary (probably over half a mile), and there are no repeater signs to remind you that the limit is 40. I was flashed at 49mph. I'd seen the camera, but couldn't see any speed signs, and the road is typical of the rural 60-limit roads I spend a lot of time on, so I didn't slow and was appalled when I got flashed.
JA has already mentioned it, but well worth going back , all be it a long way and taking a look at the signing and taking some pictures & measuring the distance. The 60 quid fine is neither here nor there , but three points last for three years..
rgds
bill
In this case, the 40mph restriction has been extended well beyond the village boundary (probably over half a mile), and there are no repeater signs to remind you that the limit is 40. I was flashed at 49mph. I'd seen the camera, but couldn't see any speed signs, and the road is typical of the rural 60-limit roads I spend a lot of time on, so I didn't slow and was appalled when I got flashed.
QUOTE
In this case, the 40mph restriction has been extended well beyond the village boundary (probably over half a mile), and there are no repeater signs to remind you that the limit is 40. I was flashed at 49mph. I'd seen the camera, but couldn't see any speed signs, and the road is typical of the rural 60-limit roads I spend a lot of time on, so I didn't slow and was appalled when I got flashed.
JA has already mentioned it, but well worth going back , all be it a long way and taking a look at the signing and taking some pictures & measuring the distance. The 60 quid fine is neither here nor there , but three points last for three years..
rgds
bill
QUOTE (andy_foster)
You've had a court hearing scheduled, but had not communications (e.g. summons, evidence bundle, etc.) after the second COFP?
Sorry, my fault, misunderstood. I was a bit fixated on the validity, or otherwise of the early correspondence, have tended to overlook the later stuff.
I don't have access to a scanner, so I'll summarise:
>>>>>
Received (postmarked 05/10/2005, about 5 months 3 weeks after NIP) a bundle of docs, with a hearing date, set for 25.10.2005.
3 flimsies,
QUOTE (1 yellow)
, Notice to accused - proof by written statement, dated 28.09.2005, signed XX "on behalf of the prosecutor". Text is repeat of basic details of alleged offence, time, date, location, "contrary to sections 84 and 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988"
Witness statements enclosed then handrwitten: Photo, NIP, letter x2, XX XXXX; YY YYYY x 3 (names of witnesses)
Witness statements enclosed then handrwitten: Photo, NIP, letter x2, XX XXXX; YY YYYY x 3 (names of witnesses)
QUOTE (Similar blue flimsy)
- Summons, date & time & place of hearing etc, repeats basic details of offence, and adds statement of facts:
"on 11.04.2005 at 10.27 hrs the defendant drove XXX XXX on A508 Harborough Road Kelmarsh at a speed exceeding the legal limit of 40 miles per hour.
The speed recorded by means of Truvelo speed device was 49 mph.
*APPLICATION FOR #35.00 PROSECUTION COSTS WILL BE MADE
machine signature, Clerk to the Justices
"on 11.04.2005 at 10.27 hrs the defendant drove XXX XXX on A508 Harborough Road Kelmarsh at a speed exceeding the legal limit of 40 miles per hour.
The speed recorded by means of Truvelo speed device was 49 mph.
*APPLICATION FOR #35.00 PROSECUTION COSTS WILL BE MADE
machine signature, Clerk to the Justices
QUOTE (final green flimsy)
, Statement of your income and outgoings, which I have glanced at, but not completed. I'll take it with me but as I intend to pay on the spot, assuming I lose but assuming I win my argument against costs, then I infer this won't be necessary.
Then there are various copies of documents:
There's a very poor reproduction of a photograph, the vehicle & registration are clear, but I'm just a faint grey blur on the right hand side. There's only 1 photograph, reproduced in 2 sizes, so I'm not sure how I would verify the speed. On the reverse of this is a photocopy of my completed NIP.
QUOTE (Page 3)
is a copy of the letter, dated 21 June, advising me I haven't responded to the COFP. (I had, by then, received a reply dated 22 June, telling me I had to respond within the original 28 days or go to court, see above.)
QUOTE (Page 4)
is a copy of a letter, dated 29th June:
"Further to our previous letter of 21st June 2005, which to date we have received no response to, we are writing to advise you that papers have been submitted to the Prosecution Unit, and you will receove a summons in due course.
If, however, you have sent your payment and driving licence to the Clerk to the Justices within the last 2 days, please contact this office on the above telephone number in order for court proceedings to be discontinued.
yours, etc
"Further to our previous letter of 21st June 2005, which to date we have received no response to, we are writing to advise you that papers have been submitted to the Prosecution Unit, and you will receove a summons in due course.
If, however, you have sent your payment and driving licence to the Clerk to the Justices within the last 2 days, please contact this office on the above telephone number in order for court proceedings to be discontinued.
yours, etc
[I hadn't, so I didn't]
QUOTE (Page 5)
, Witness statement of XX XXXXX, dated 12/04/05
Tick if witness evidence is visually recorder [this box is ticked]
"At 12.05 on Tuesday the 12th April 2005 I removed from the secure cabinet within the Film Management Unit, a box containing a Roll of film from a Truvelo static camera, with the film number XXXXX With exhibit number XXX From this film I obtained images of the offending vehicle, as attached
The data bar shown on the photograph can be interpreted [etc,etc, etc]
Signature XXXXXX signature witnessed by, [blank]
on the reverse it then states:
Statement of YYYYY
dated Tuesday, April 05, 2005, [signature]
I am authorised to service and operate the Truvelo Combi Smc Speed Camera System in current use in Northamptonshire. These systems are Home Office Type Approved devices and in Accordance with ACPO guidelines, both the site and camera are calibrated annually by the manufacturers agent and certified as being correct.
On Tuesday, 05 April 2005 at 08.10 Hrs
I loaded fixed site number 9039 A508 Harborough Rd Kelmarsh. With camera number 920 and cassette number XXXXX, containing film number XXXXX and smart card / key number XXXX
The time clock within the device was set by me using a "rugby" clock which ensures that the time shown on each offence is correct. When the device was switched on I observed as it went through its self-calibration procedure which verified to me that it was working correctly.
I make this statement as original notes.
[signed]
I am authorised to service and operate the Truvelo Combi Smc Speed Camera System are currently in use within Northamptonshire. These systems are Home Office Type Approved. And in Accordance with ACPO guidelines both site and camera are calibrated annually by the Manufacturers agent and certified as being correct.
On Tuesdat, 12 April 2005 at 06.44 Hrs, I removed Film Cassette Numbered [same as before] containing film number [same as before] and smart card or key number [as before] from site number [as before]. At this time I checked that the unit was working correctly and with the use of a "rugby" clock I confirmed that the time shown on the device was correct.
I took the film cassette to Safety Camera Team office and removed the exposed Portion of film, I then developed this film which I produce as exhibit XXX. The fil amd smart card with this statement were then placed in a secure locker, located in the developing room at the safety camera team office
I make this statement as original notes
[signed]
Tick if witness evidence is visually recorder [this box is ticked]
"At 12.05 on Tuesday the 12th April 2005 I removed from the secure cabinet within the Film Management Unit, a box containing a Roll of film from a Truvelo static camera, with the film number XXXXX With exhibit number XXX From this film I obtained images of the offending vehicle, as attached
The data bar shown on the photograph can be interpreted [etc,etc, etc]
Signature XXXXXX signature witnessed by, [blank]
on the reverse it then states:
Statement of YYYYY
dated Tuesday, April 05, 2005, [signature]
I am authorised to service and operate the Truvelo Combi Smc Speed Camera System in current use in Northamptonshire. These systems are Home Office Type Approved devices and in Accordance with ACPO guidelines, both the site and camera are calibrated annually by the manufacturers agent and certified as being correct.
On Tuesday, 05 April 2005 at 08.10 Hrs
I loaded fixed site number 9039 A508 Harborough Rd Kelmarsh. With camera number 920 and cassette number XXXXX, containing film number XXXXX and smart card / key number XXXX
The time clock within the device was set by me using a "rugby" clock which ensures that the time shown on each offence is correct. When the device was switched on I observed as it went through its self-calibration procedure which verified to me that it was working correctly.
I make this statement as original notes.
[signed]
I am authorised to service and operate the Truvelo Combi Smc Speed Camera System are currently in use within Northamptonshire. These systems are Home Office Type Approved. And in Accordance with ACPO guidelines both site and camera are calibrated annually by the Manufacturers agent and certified as being correct.
On Tuesdat, 12 April 2005 at 06.44 Hrs, I removed Film Cassette Numbered [same as before] containing film number [same as before] and smart card or key number [as before] from site number [as before]. At this time I checked that the unit was working correctly and with the use of a "rugby" clock I confirmed that the time shown on the device was correct.
I took the film cassette to Safety Camera Team office and removed the exposed Portion of film, I then developed this film which I produce as exhibit XXX. The fil amd smart card with this statement were then placed in a secure locker, located in the developing room at the safety camera team office
I make this statement as original notes
[signed]
Finally:
QUOTE
Witness statement of YYYY signed & dated 12 04 05
I am authorised to service & operate the Truvelo Combi Speed Camera System during the week of the 4th-8th April 2005 when loading the systems I put the Site Number and Film number th wrong way round therefore when reading the films the first 2 figures are the site code with 90 in front of them and the second 2 figures are the tfilm number
[initialled & signed][witnessed by - himself]
I am authorised to service & operate the Truvelo Combi Speed Camera System during the week of the 4th-8th April 2005 when loading the systems I put the Site Number and Film number th wrong way round therefore when reading the films the first 2 figures are the site code with 90 in front of them and the second 2 figures are the tfilm number
[initialled & signed][witnessed by - himself]
>>>>
That's about it, anything here of interest, or use?
thanks again for help & patience,
S
QUOTE
final green flimsy, Statement of your income and outgoings, which I have glanced at, but not completed. I'll take it with me but as I intend to pay on the spot, assuming I lose but assuming I win my argument against costs, then I infer this won't be necessary.
Part of its function is in setting the level of fine, not just assessing 'time to pay'. Take it with you completed and hand it in when asked by the Mags/advisor.QUOTE
There's a very poor reproduction of a photograph, the vehicle & registration are clear, but I'm just a faint grey blur on the right hand side. There's only 1 photograph, reproduced in 2 sizes, so I'm not sure how I would verify the speed.
The device is a Truvelo. The secondary check is that the photograph shows your wheels over the marked lines - there is only one photograph (it's Gatsos that produce two).
Update:
revisited the site yesterday, signs have definitely changed. There is now a repeater exactly where there should be, 250yds in on LHS. Was definitely not there when I got flashed. Also, signs at the head of the slip road have been reposiioned.
went to court today, argued 2 points: 1). speed limit unenforceable, due to lack of adequate signage. 2). COFP was invalid, as the conditions pertaining to the Conditional Offer were not specified (they were the missing bit on the back of the faulty COFP, plus instructions & address to submit the payment & licence). Therefore safer to dismiss the case, given these 2 arguable points.
Didn't work, BUT, the mags did just fine me the £60, plus 3 points. Application for prosecution costs was refused.
So a draw, I guess.
However, I wonder if this opens up any avenues for a small fight-back. Would be grateful for an opinion:
Having been sentenced, I explained to the court that, in effect, I had been penalised beyond the fixed penalty level by incurring the expense of attending (a round-trip of some 260 miles). I asked if there was any way to mitigate that. Was told by the clerk that the court had made its ruling...
So I wonder whether I might have grounds for a civil claim against the Camera Partnership, for my travelling expenses, plus possibly the loss of time at work?
Thoughts appreciated,
S
revisited the site yesterday, signs have definitely changed. There is now a repeater exactly where there should be, 250yds in on LHS. Was definitely not there when I got flashed. Also, signs at the head of the slip road have been reposiioned.
went to court today, argued 2 points: 1). speed limit unenforceable, due to lack of adequate signage. 2). COFP was invalid, as the conditions pertaining to the Conditional Offer were not specified (they were the missing bit on the back of the faulty COFP, plus instructions & address to submit the payment & licence). Therefore safer to dismiss the case, given these 2 arguable points.
Didn't work, BUT, the mags did just fine me the £60, plus 3 points. Application for prosecution costs was refused.
So a draw, I guess.
However, I wonder if this opens up any avenues for a small fight-back. Would be grateful for an opinion:
Having been sentenced, I explained to the court that, in effect, I had been penalised beyond the fixed penalty level by incurring the expense of attending (a round-trip of some 260 miles). I asked if there was any way to mitigate that. Was told by the clerk that the court had made its ruling...
So I wonder whether I might have grounds for a civil claim against the Camera Partnership, for my travelling expenses, plus possibly the loss of time at work?
Thoughts appreciated,
S
QUOTE (patdavies @ Fri, 6 Jan 2006 - 13:25)
The defective COFP is unlikely to get you off.
I suspect that what will happen is that the Mags will fine £60 + 3 points and refuse CPS costs - which would put you in the same psoition as having accepted the COFP.
I suspect that what will happen is that the Mags will fine £60 + 3 points and refuse CPS costs - which would put you in the same psoition as having accepted the COFP.
Now, if only I could predict tonight's lottery numbers....................
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.