Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Doing 107mph on motorway
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Hoomanbeing
Hi, I received a NIP for doing 107mph on the m6toll, one of the options suggested to me was to ignore and wait for the failure to furnish, this suggestion was given by a solicitor. They said they could then try and get both cases reduced just to failure to furnish, which could result in possibly6 points(am making the presumption that this is a lesser penalty than what I could get to pleading guilty to the speeding) however the problem I have is that the solicitor charges £2000 to get this reduced and £3000 if it goes to court. That is money that I simply do not have, to some it may not sound a lot but to me it is. So I was wondering, the action of getting the case reduced from speeding and failing to furnish to just failing to furnish how complex is that and is it something a normal person could achieve without legal assistance?
Thank you

Any assistance or advice you can offer is GREATLY appreciated!
BertB
Can you complete the NIP wizard with regard the speeding offence and post the results here?

Or at least provide some more details. Was this in the variable speed section with your speed detected by camera on the overhead gantry for instance? If so, what was the speed displayed.

107 in a 70mph is not necessarily an automatic ban.
Hoomanbeing
Ok sorry, yes answers are:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

The letter says that they have photographic evidence from an approved device. The offence was doing 107 in a 70 at the m42/mg toll junction 9-8, MP 41/4 jS/B, Curdworth

It doesn't say whether it was a handheld or overhead gantry sorry
mrh3369
I'm not sure it's best practice for a solicitor to advise you to commit a criminal offence. They could find themselves in a spot of bother for doing so.
Hoomanbeing
Thanks

Does anyone know the action of getting the a case reduced from speeding and failing to furnish to just failing to furnish how complex is that and is it something a normal person could achieve without legal assistance?
Jlc
You should nominate the driver. Failure to do so is 6 points, ~£500 fine and many years of insurance pain.

107 in a 70 is likely to be 6 points anyway or possibly a short ban. (Talking 2-3 weeks)

I can't see what value the solicitor is adding for that cost.

Hoomanbeing
Thanks jlc, does a ban not cause the years of aggravation with insurance then?
NeverMind
QUOTE (Hoomanbeing @ Tue, 4 Jun 2013 - 14:44) *
Thanks jlc, does a ban not cause the years of aggravation with insurance then?


Not as much as a FTF ... insurance companies deal with speeders every day, but with an FTF they assume the worst.

I'd say you got some pretty bad advice there!
Jlc
QUOTE (Hoomanbeing @ Tue, 4 Jun 2013 - 14:44) *
Thanks jlc, does a ban not cause the years of aggravation with insurance then?

Ban or points will have an impact of course. Try some dummy quotes with an online engine to gauge the relative impacts. But as already noted, a MS90 (failing to furnish) is usually worse.
AFCNEAL
QUOTE (NeverMind @ Tue, 4 Jun 2013 - 14:50) *
QUOTE (Hoomanbeing @ Tue, 4 Jun 2013 - 14:44) *
Thanks jlc, does a ban not cause the years of aggravation with insurance then?


Not as much as a FTF ... insurance companies deal with speeders every day, but with an FTF they assume the worst.

I'd say you got some pretty bad advice there!


Spot on! FTF is a big hit on insurance and hangs around like a bad smell. OK, a ban ain't great but you have a 50% chance (IMO) of no ban, but 100% of an FTF if you FTF - go figure!!
The Rookie
Hopefully the Solicitor didn't actually suggest you do that, merely told you what would/could happen if you did, if he did suggest it he's being a 'very naughty boy'.

It is not a route many would take until the speed is over circa 115mph, as suggested use a comparison site with a made up name at an address in the same postcode (but not your address) to compare say a 3 week ban with an SP50 code, same with 6 points and to 6 points with an MS90 to understand the insurance effect.
Jlc
It's not unusual to have a SP50 and 6 points. A ban will be deemed more risky and actually you'll find a number of insurers will decline to quote with a MS90!
albert2008
QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 4 Jun 2013 - 15:44) *
QUOTE (Hoomanbeing @ Tue, 4 Jun 2013 - 14:44) *
Thanks jlc, does a ban not cause the years of aggravation with insurance then?

Ban or points will have an impact of course. Try some dummy quotes with an online engine to gauge the relative impacts.


but do NOT use your real name,
sgtdixie
My opinion is that the solicitor you spoke to was trying to scare you into shelling out several thousand pounds for them to ride in and save you from a fate worse than death.

Whilst we can never rule out a short disqualification 107 is not seen as automatic ban offence these days.

A better and cheaper strategy is to plead guilty to the speeding having nominated yourself, turn up suited and booted, make no excuses, apologise for wasting the courts time and show genuine remorse for committing the offence. Tell them you fully appreciate that they would consider banning you but ask if they would consider a high level of points to focus your driving and a fine commensurate with the speeds involved.

Benches like to see and hear drivers say these sorts of things and show they have learned their lesson. They also like giving enough points so that a similar offence will lead to a totting ban.

If you really want a solicitor try bblaw. He does a fixed price service and anecdotal evidence suggests he can be very persuasive. (it's a sham he doesn't post on here any more)

Personally I would be reporting your original solicitor to the law society.
Jlc
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Tue, 4 Jun 2013 - 17:01) *
it's a sham he doesn't post on here any more

Absolutely. laugh.gif

Seriously, he can be found here but don't forget the recommend solicitors here. But representing yourself with a guilty plea is going to save you a stack of cash towards the fine.
sgtdixie
Freudian slip, oops.
Hoomanbeing
No the solicitor didn't say I should do it, merely presented it as an option!
My only real worry is that my time is up on replying to the original NIP, the 28 days have just passed sad.gif
southpaw82
You'd best reply quickly then.
Hoomanbeing
Can you miss the deadline by like a day or something?
Jlc
Yup. But realistically they would rather prosecute for the underlying offence rather than FtF. They will probably accept a slightly late nomination.
mike hunt
QUOTE (NeverMind @ Tue, 4 Jun 2013 - 14:50) *
QUOTE (Hoomanbeing @ Tue, 4 Jun 2013 - 14:44) *
Thanks jlc, does a ban not cause the years of aggravation with insurance then?


Not as much as a FTF ... insurance companies deal with speeders every day, but with an FTF they assume the worst.

I'd say you got some pretty bad advice there!


I don't think FTF is necessarily as bad as is claimed on here sometimes.

I just did a quick check, 40 year old male (does this still matter?), Volkswagen Golf Match TDI 2008 valued at £7k, 15-years NCD/driving licence:

£169 with no offences

SP50:
£204 with 6 points, £1k fine, no ban
£264 with 6 points, £1k fine, 1 month ban

MS90:
£245 with 6 points, £600 fine, no ban

For a 21-year old male, with the same cars, and 3-years NCD/driving licence:

£570 with no offence - 63 quotes

SP50:
£609 with the 6 points and no ban - 63 quotes
£609 with the 6 points and 1 month ban (next cheapest is £857) - 51 quotes

MS90:
£777 (next cheapest is £888) - 52 quotes

For the low risk driver, the MS90 appears to be better than SP50 + ban. For the high risk driver, the SP50 + ban is better than MS90, but obviously you have to consider the cost of the ban itself.

It depends on the individual, but an MS90 from what I've seen is not a problem for most insurers.
TonyS
Is it just me, or does it sound dodgy to deliberately choose not to reply to the request to name the driver, even though the information is known? I'd be worried about ending up with both the speeding and the failure to furnish convictions, or maybe something worse.

Tony S
dawmdt
QUOTE (TonyS @ Wed, 5 Jun 2013 - 09:00) *
Is it just me, or does it sound dodgy to deliberately choose not to reply to the request to name the driver, even though the information is known? I'd be worried about ending up with both the speeding and the failure to furnish convictions, or maybe something worse.

Tony S


It is possible to be convicted of both but they'd need to be able to prove who the driver was first to successfully convict for speeding.
Ms Demeanor
QUOTE (Hoomanbeing @ Tue, 4 Jun 2013 - 13:18) *
Hi, I received a NIP for doing 107mph on the m6toll, one of the options suggested to me was to ignore and wait for the failure to furnish, this suggestion was given by a solicitor. They said they could then try and get both cases reduced just to failure to furnish, which could result in possibly6 points(am making the presumption that this is a lesser penalty than what I could get to pleading guilty to the speeding) however the problem I have is that the solicitor charges £2000 to get this reduced and £3000 if it goes to court. That is money that I simply do not have, to some it may not sound a lot but to me it is. So I was wondering, the action of getting the case reduced from speeding and failing to furnish to just failing to furnish how complex is that and is it something a normal person could achieve without legal assistance?
Thank you

Any assistance or advice you can offer is GREATLY appreciated!


If you get your mitigation right a ban is not inevitable for that speed. You should scrape 6 points. Honesty is generally the best policy and dealing with this in a straightforward and simple way is always generally better that some silly scam.

If I was the cps lawyer and you failed to name I would try and mention that it was a failing to name in relation to a really high speed - that would make the court take the failing to name more seriously. You can get a discretionary ban for any endorseable offence - not just speeding....Just keep it simple - and those fees are just plain daft.
norahl
QUOTE (dawmdt @ Wed, 5 Jun 2013 - 11:27) *
QUOTE (TonyS @ Wed, 5 Jun 2013 - 09:00) *
Is it just me, or does it sound dodgy to deliberately choose not to reply to the request to name the driver, even though the information is known? I'd be worried about ending up with both the speeding and the failure to furnish convictions, or maybe something worse.

Tony S


It is possible to be convicted of both but they'd need to be able to prove who the driver was first to successfully convict for speeding.


Yes it is as the court can reasonably presume it is the registered keeper driving until proven otherwise.

QUOTE (Ms Demeanor @ Wed, 5 Jun 2013 - 21:19) *
QUOTE (Hoomanbeing @ Tue, 4 Jun 2013 - 13:18) *
Hi, I received a NIP for doing 107mph on the m6toll, one of the options suggested to me was to ignore and wait for the failure to furnish, this suggestion was given by a solicitor. They said they could then try and get both cases reduced just to failure to furnish, which could result in possibly6 points(am making the presumption that this is a lesser penalty than what I could get to pleading guilty to the speeding) however the problem I have is that the solicitor charges £2000 to get this reduced and £3000 if it goes to court. That is money that I simply do not have, to some it may not sound a lot but to me it is. So I was wondering, the action of getting the case reduced from speeding and failing to furnish to just failing to furnish how complex is that and is it something a normal person could achieve without legal assistance?
Thank you

Any assistance or advice you can offer is GREATLY appreciated!


If you get your mitigation right a ban is not inevitable for that speed. You should scrape 6 points. Honesty is generally the best policy and dealing with this in a straightforward and simple way is always generally better that some silly scam.

If I was the cps lawyer and you failed to name I would try and mention that it was a failing to name in relation to a really high speed - that would make the court take the failing to name more seriously. You can get a discretionary ban for any endorseable offence - not just speeding....Just keep it simple - and those fees are just plain daft.

If I was the CPS lawyer I would be prosecuting both offences at the same hearing.
southpaw82
QUOTE (norahl @ Wed, 5 Jun 2013 - 21:46) *
Yes it is as the court can reasonably presume it is the registered keeper driving until proven otherwise.

Can you cite authority for that?
QUOTE
If I was the CPS lawyer I would be prosecuting both offences at the same hearing.


I'm sure we're all grateful you're not, for various reasons.
sgtdixie
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 5 Jun 2013 - 22:12) *
QUOTE (norahl @ Wed, 5 Jun 2013 - 21:46) *
Yes it is as the court can reasonably presume it is the registered keeper driving until proven otherwise.

Can you cite authority for that?
QUOTE
If I was the CPS lawyer I would be prosecuting both offences at the same hearing.


I'm sure we're all grateful you're not, for various reasons.


Yet again norahl shows that wanting something to be true and it actually being so are very different things. There is currently consultation underway looking at amending the law in relation to this very issue and also NIP's. That change however is some way off so in the meantime his assertion that a RK can simply be assumed to be the driver is unfounded.

It is true to say that in some circumstances a keeper is considered to be the driver. The most obvious one I can recall was a very high speed speeding offence involving a company vehicle. Driver X was named by the company but refused to name the driver. However the company nomination and other factors all pointed towards the employee being the driver. He was double charged and convicted of both and the DJ in sentencing made it clear that the evidence left him in no doubt the accused was the driver.
Ms Demeanor
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Thu, 6 Jun 2013 - 06:12) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 5 Jun 2013 - 22:12) *
QUOTE (norahl @ Wed, 5 Jun 2013 - 21:46) *
Yes it is as the court can reasonably presume it is the registered keeper driving until proven otherwise.

Can you cite authority for that?
QUOTE
If I was the CPS lawyer I would be prosecuting both offences at the same hearing.


I'm sure we're all grateful you're not, for various reasons.


Yet again norahl shows that wanting something to be true and it actually being so are very different things. There is currently consultation underway looking at amending the law in relation to this very issue and also NIP's. That change however is some way off so in the meantime his assertion that a RK can simply be assumed to be the driver is unfounded.

It is true to say that in some circumstances a keeper is considered to be the driver. The most obvious one I can recall was a very high speed speeding offence involving a company vehicle. Driver X was named by the company but refused to name the driver. However the company nomination and other factors all pointed towards the employee being the driver. He was double charged and convicted of both and the DJ in sentencing made it clear that the evidence left him in no doubt the accused was the driver.


There are quite a few cases where being the "owner" of the car raises an evidential presumption that you would have been the driver in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
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.