Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Excessive fine despite recieving speeding notification 46 days late
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
joconer
I recieved a speeding notifications for driving 47 miles in a 40 mile speed limit. I recieved this 46 days after the incident. I immediately wrote to the camera office and asked them "do I still need to comply and pay fine despite having recieved the notice 46 days late."

The officer admitted that the form may be lost in post and send me another one. However he simply would not answer the question. They sent the case to court without telling me.


I told the court that I am forced to plead guilty as I dont know the what was the correct legal standing.

The court fined me £600 plus 6 points.

Can they avoid answering my question and clarifying the legal position?
Is there anything I can do like appealing the decision?

Thanks for your help

joconer
Glacier2
No one forced you to plead guilty. Why did you not seek legal advice? It is not the job of the police to give legal advice.
andy_foster
The 'speeding notifications' included a legal requirement to tell them who was driving. It seems that you were convicted of failing to do so - which is why you got 6 points (endorsement code MS90) and a large fine. If they failed to serve a NIP on the driver or RK within the 14 days, that would have been a defence to the speeding allegation, but not to failing to provide the driver's details under s .172 Road Traffic Act 1988.

Generally you cannot appeal a conviction if you pled guilty - although might be possible to have the case reopened if you did not know what you were pleading guilty to.
Pete D
Did you complete the S172 identifying the driver, sign it and sent it back within the 28 days. Was the car in your name at the date of the offence, look on you V5 page 2 doc ref and what exactly did you plead guilty to. Pete D
desktop_demon
to clarify - the OP got a summons to go to court and at the court pleaded guilty to a charge - of what exactly. Failure to furnish (s.172) seems likely. But there are a lot of details missing in the OPs description of events. Sounds like a right "crash" of a case. If the OP had only come to PPP sooner.....
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.