| Non QPR - Summons 15:29 - Nov 14 with 6854 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
Afternoon.
Waiting for a solicitor to get back to me, but in the mean time I wish to draw from all your expertise which always delivers!
My partner has been issued a summons after a long backward and forwards with Northumbria police. She is the registered owner of our car.
Basically, we both spent a long weekend in the NE in May seeing Newcastle, Durham, Farne Islands, and the Northumbria coast etc. We had a lovely time. All in all about 700 to 900 miles driving in four days.
Because of the amount of driving we were doing we took it in turns swapping over the driving every time we stopped. Must have swapped at least 20 odd times.
Anyway at some point one of us does 37mph in a 30mph zone and get sent a ticket about three months later.
Neither of us are disputing this. But we genuinely can't remember who was driving.
Obviously we can't remember who drove that particular segment because it was a pretty anonymous part of the trip and was three months prior to when we received the ticket.
Anyway, we request the photos to see if we can identify the driver and after a long time they get to us but just show the number plate and nothing else.
We tell them we can't identify the driver. The charge for lying about who was driving vehicle when a offence is committed is minimum 6 months in nick i'm told (see Chris Huhne) so we didn't risk it. Otherwise I would have just taken the point myself.
Anyway, now they are charging us with failing to provide driver information and need to go up to Gateshead magistrate next month.
Anyone been in this situation. What do we do? [Post edited 14 Nov 2022 15:48]
|  | | |  |
| Non QPR - Summons on 09:45 - Nov 15 with 2560 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
Only thing I can add is that I had a similar thing happen - 37mph in a 30mph zone a couple of years ago. I was offered the speed awareness course but didn’t reply in time so ended up with 3 points on my license. It didn’t affect the cost of my car insurance. |  |
| |
| Non QPR - Summons on 10:02 - Nov 15 with 2529 views | GloryHunter |
This exact situation happened to a couple of my cousins - two brothers. On holiday with their families in the west country. They had no idea which was driving at the time, and the photo didn't help. Since they both drive for a living and didn't want the penalty points, they persuaded their mother (who wasn't on the trip) to take the rap, and paid the fine for her. It seemed to be the best way out. |  | | |
| Non QPR - Summons on 11:50 - Nov 15 with 2422 views | lightwaterhoop |
| Non QPR - Summons on 10:02 - Nov 15 by GloryHunter |
This exact situation happened to a couple of my cousins - two brothers. On holiday with their families in the west country. They had no idea which was driving at the time, and the photo didn't help. Since they both drive for a living and didn't want the penalty points, they persuaded their mother (who wasn't on the trip) to take the rap, and paid the fine for her. It seemed to be the best way out. |
How could they do that to their Mother! she had the very real risk of a prison sentence if caught.You might ask a mate to do it because the risk of being caught is very small but your Mum!! [Post edited 15 Nov 2022 11:54]
|  | | |
| Non QPR - Summons on 12:16 - Nov 15 with 2393 views | WokingR |
| Non QPR - Summons on 18:53 - Nov 14 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Q: When did the incident take place?
A: 8th June 2022 (not May as I thought)
Q:Were you stopped at the scene by Police or just recorded by camera?
A: Recorded by mobile unit
Q:Were you involved in an accident?
A: No
Q: When did you receive a "ticket"?
A: Can’t remember, we have to send it back. Around a week after.
Q:What exactly was this "ticket" (Was it a Penalty Charge Notice, Notice of Intended Prosecution, something else)?
A: PCN
Q:Was this "ticket" addressed only to the registered keeper (i.e. your partner)?
A: Yes
Q: When you say you told them that you couldn't identify the driver, how did you do this and what exactly did you tell them?
A: We (in my partner’s name) asked for photo evidence after receiving the PCN as we couldn’t remember who drove.
Q: If you didn't make a declaration, how did you manage to get hold of the images?
A: By post by asking. The intention was to see if the driver could be seen. Unsurprisingly me and my missus look very different.
Q:When were these images provided?
A: September 7th
Q: When did you receive the summons?
A: Today
Q:Who exactly has been summoned?
A: My partner [Post edited 14 Nov 2022 18:55]
|
Anyone else starting to think Benny The Ball is acting for the prosecution and was just gathering evidence ? |  | | |
| Non QPR - Summons on 12:51 - Nov 15 with 2347 views | TacticalR |
Kafkaesque. |  |
| |
| Non QPR - Summons on 16:28 - Nov 15 with 2172 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Non QPR - Summons on 18:53 - Nov 14 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Q: When did the incident take place?
A: 8th June 2022 (not May as I thought)
Q:Were you stopped at the scene by Police or just recorded by camera?
A: Recorded by mobile unit
Q:Were you involved in an accident?
A: No
Q: When did you receive a "ticket"?
A: Can’t remember, we have to send it back. Around a week after.
Q:What exactly was this "ticket" (Was it a Penalty Charge Notice, Notice of Intended Prosecution, something else)?
A: PCN
Q:Was this "ticket" addressed only to the registered keeper (i.e. your partner)?
A: Yes
Q: When you say you told them that you couldn't identify the driver, how did you do this and what exactly did you tell them?
A: We (in my partner’s name) asked for photo evidence after receiving the PCN as we couldn’t remember who drove.
Q: If you didn't make a declaration, how did you manage to get hold of the images?
A: By post by asking. The intention was to see if the driver could be seen. Unsurprisingly me and my missus look very different.
Q:When were these images provided?
A: September 7th
Q: When did you receive the summons?
A: Today
Q:Who exactly has been summoned?
A: My partner [Post edited 14 Nov 2022 18:55]
|
Thanks, however, one thing doesn't make sense; the nature of the "ticket". It's important to be precise with your answers in order to build the right defence.
You state that the ticket your wife received was a PCN. It's unusual for the Camera Processing Unit to issue this prior to establishing the identity of the driver. When a vehicle is recorded by camera as committing a driving offence, but isn't stopped at the time of the offence, the Police typically serve an NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) on the registered keeper. This is the document where you're asked to confirm who the driver was on the occasion of the incident. Once the driver's identity has been established, the Police follow this up with the penalty. For folk with good driving records, they typically make a conditional offer (driver awareness course or fixed penalty etc.) otherwise the case goes to court.
Please check the first document your partner received and confirm exactly what it is (the title will be at the top of the letter), as well as the date of this letter. [Post edited 15 Nov 2022 16:29]
|  | | |
| Non QPR - Summons on 19:23 - Nov 15 with 2050 views | silverbirch |
I love threads like this one. Thanks, Bazza | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Non QPR - Summons on 20:08 - Nov 15 with 2007 views | distortR |
I don't know if this helps Baz, but Marx said that revolution is the driving force of history. | | | |
| Non QPR - Summons on 20:10 - Nov 15 with 2003 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Non QPR - Summons on 16:28 - Nov 15 by Benny_the_Ball |
Thanks, however, one thing doesn't make sense; the nature of the "ticket". It's important to be precise with your answers in order to build the right defence.
You state that the ticket your wife received was a PCN. It's unusual for the Camera Processing Unit to issue this prior to establishing the identity of the driver. When a vehicle is recorded by camera as committing a driving offence, but isn't stopped at the time of the offence, the Police typically serve an NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) on the registered keeper. This is the document where you're asked to confirm who the driver was on the occasion of the incident. Once the driver's identity has been established, the Police follow this up with the penalty. For folk with good driving records, they typically make a conditional offer (driver awareness course or fixed penalty etc.) otherwise the case goes to court.
Please check the first document your partner received and confirm exactly what it is (the title will be at the top of the letter), as well as the date of this letter. [Post edited 15 Nov 2022 16:29]
|
Thanks for looking, but like I say we had to send the original document back.
Personally, I can’t think of anything more damaging for our chances than arguing with a magistrate over what the initial letter was called. If I was a magistrate I would consider that passive aggressive.
We just want it recognised that we’ve strived to do the right thing and are being punished for it, as LBlock said. [Post edited 16 Nov 2022 1:18]
| | | |
| Non QPR - Summons on 23:26 - Nov 15 with 1930 views | GloryHunter |
| Non QPR - Summons on 11:50 - Nov 15 by lightwaterhoop |
How could they do that to their Mother! she had the very real risk of a prison sentence if caught.You might ask a mate to do it because the risk of being caught is very small but your Mum!! [Post edited 15 Nov 2022 11:54]
|
Well, how would anyone ever know? The system relies on the vehicle owner stating who was driving. The cops can't prove anything one way or the other. My cousins' mum is still happily free, they are free of points, and the authorities get their sixty quid. Win win win. | | | |
| Non QPR - Summons on 01:16 - Nov 16 with 1895 views | Boston |
| Non QPR - Summons on 12:16 - Nov 15 by WokingR |
Anyone else starting to think Benny The Ball is acting for the prosecution and was just gathering evidence ? |
Benny, the secret policeman's ball. | |
| |
| Non QPR - Summons on 15:20 - Nov 16 with 1713 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Non QPR - Summons on 20:10 - Nov 15 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Thanks for looking, but like I say we had to send the original document back.
Personally, I can’t think of anything more damaging for our chances than arguing with a magistrate over what the initial letter was called. If I was a magistrate I would consider that passive aggressive.
We just want it recognised that we’ve strived to do the right thing and are being punished for it, as LBlock said. [Post edited 16 Nov 2022 1:18]
|
I understand where you're coming from, Bazza, but that's a very subjective defence which has a limited chance of success and is laden with risk. The Magistrates Court will be wary of setting a precedent that other drivers could take advantage of. If they think that your partner is deliberately withholding information or not being truthful about the person who was driving at the time of the incident, this is a much more serious offence then the original speeding! She could be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. As a result, if she intends to pursue this line of defence, I recommend hiring a professional who can build a robust case that proves that she did everything possible to establish who was driving. This is going to be difficult given that she has already admitted that it was either her or you.
Ultimately the objective is to win the case, not strive for recognition that you were doing the right thing. As a result, I'm trying to establish first whether there has been an error in procedure. Such an error would offer a more robust defence. Now, the initial letter you received was in all likelihood a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP). The reason I asked about the document is because the police have 14 days from the date of the offence to serve an NIP. If you didn't receive this within 14-days, the prosecution may be void, unless the vehicle was involved in an accident. I would request a copy of the completed form so that you have it on file and can check that the date falls within the 14 days.
Next, the NIP typically provides details of a website where you can view evidence for the alleged offence online. This includes photographs taken by the camera, so the argument that you had to request images by post and didn't receive them until September may, unfortunately, fall on deaf ears. However, it could help your partner's case if her argument is that she was writing in the hope of obtaining front-facing images. This demonstrates effort on her part to determine the identity of the driver.
If the NIP has been served correctly, the registered keeper has 28 days in which to complete and return it. As you're both unsure as to who was driving, I can only assume that your partner returned a partially completed form, hence the court summons. The good news is that your partner replied to the form so the prosecution can't merely rely on serving the notice, they must prove what information was in the registered keeper's power to give. The bad news is your partner will likely need to provide evidence that supports your version of events and demonstrates that she did everything in her power to establish the identity of the driver.
The High Court has given some guidance on what enquiries the keeper of a vehicle should make to find out who was driving (see Marshall v DPP). Check this case for all possible avenues as it’s not OK to be inaccurate or misleading when replying to the police (see Flegg v Southampton Justices).
In short:
(1) Check first if there's been an error in procedure. For example, was the NIP served within 14-days of the date of the offence? If not, that's pretty much a slam dunk.
(2) If no error in procedure, seek legal advice to establish the best line of defence. If you do decide to go with the truth, then make sure you gather as much evidence as possible to support it. Firstly, evidence that supports the road trip and proves that you travelled together during this period (bookings, emails, receipts, etc.). Documents that show that you're both legally entitled to drive the car (insurance certificate). Photographs of your road trip that support the above. Evidence from any 3rd parties that you may have encountered on your trip. Secondly, collate evidence that demonstrates that your partner did everything in her power to try to establish who was driving at the time of the offence (e.g. written request for any images of the front of the vehicle with the driver clearly visible).
(3) Seek legal advice. If your lawyer considers your partner's defence to be high risk, he/she could look into arranging a meeting with the police (without prejudice) to negotiate an out-of-court settlement. The police are under no obligation to provide this but may be willing as it saves time and cost and brings the case to an early conclusion. 3 points and a £100 fixed penalty is far better than 6 points and a fine of up to £1000.
I wish you and your partner luck with the case! | | | |
| Non QPR - Summons on 15:21 - Nov 16 with 1711 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Non QPR - Summons on 18:53 - Nov 14 by PunteR |
Flip a coin ,whoever loses does the speed awareness course. You wont get points. Unless you've been done before within 3 years.
Im pretty sure you wont get banged up for this.
As long as you pay the fine, that's all they really want.
That's about as far as my legal expertise stretch too im afraid. |
That would have been my advice too had Bazza reached out earlier but, unfortunately, it's too late for that. Had Bazza's partner nominated a driver on the NIP then the driver may well have been offered an educational course or, at worst, 3 points and a fixed penalty of £100. The NIP has been returned incomplete, so the case has proceeded to court. You can ask the police for a meeting without prejudice to see if they're prepared to accept a lesser penalty out of court, but they're under no obligation to provide this. [Post edited 16 Nov 2022 15:30]
| | | |
| Non QPR - Summons on 16:41 - Nov 16 with 1654 views | WokingR |
Well done Benny The Ball
Beyond the call of duty help for a fellow R
 | | | |
| Non QPR - Summons on 00:22 - Nov 17 with 1541 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Non QPR - Summons on 15:20 - Nov 16 by Benny_the_Ball |
I understand where you're coming from, Bazza, but that's a very subjective defence which has a limited chance of success and is laden with risk. The Magistrates Court will be wary of setting a precedent that other drivers could take advantage of. If they think that your partner is deliberately withholding information or not being truthful about the person who was driving at the time of the incident, this is a much more serious offence then the original speeding! She could be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. As a result, if she intends to pursue this line of defence, I recommend hiring a professional who can build a robust case that proves that she did everything possible to establish who was driving. This is going to be difficult given that she has already admitted that it was either her or you.
Ultimately the objective is to win the case, not strive for recognition that you were doing the right thing. As a result, I'm trying to establish first whether there has been an error in procedure. Such an error would offer a more robust defence. Now, the initial letter you received was in all likelihood a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP). The reason I asked about the document is because the police have 14 days from the date of the offence to serve an NIP. If you didn't receive this within 14-days, the prosecution may be void, unless the vehicle was involved in an accident. I would request a copy of the completed form so that you have it on file and can check that the date falls within the 14 days.
Next, the NIP typically provides details of a website where you can view evidence for the alleged offence online. This includes photographs taken by the camera, so the argument that you had to request images by post and didn't receive them until September may, unfortunately, fall on deaf ears. However, it could help your partner's case if her argument is that she was writing in the hope of obtaining front-facing images. This demonstrates effort on her part to determine the identity of the driver.
If the NIP has been served correctly, the registered keeper has 28 days in which to complete and return it. As you're both unsure as to who was driving, I can only assume that your partner returned a partially completed form, hence the court summons. The good news is that your partner replied to the form so the prosecution can't merely rely on serving the notice, they must prove what information was in the registered keeper's power to give. The bad news is your partner will likely need to provide evidence that supports your version of events and demonstrates that she did everything in her power to establish the identity of the driver.
The High Court has given some guidance on what enquiries the keeper of a vehicle should make to find out who was driving (see Marshall v DPP). Check this case for all possible avenues as it’s not OK to be inaccurate or misleading when replying to the police (see Flegg v Southampton Justices).
In short:
(1) Check first if there's been an error in procedure. For example, was the NIP served within 14-days of the date of the offence? If not, that's pretty much a slam dunk.
(2) If no error in procedure, seek legal advice to establish the best line of defence. If you do decide to go with the truth, then make sure you gather as much evidence as possible to support it. Firstly, evidence that supports the road trip and proves that you travelled together during this period (bookings, emails, receipts, etc.). Documents that show that you're both legally entitled to drive the car (insurance certificate). Photographs of your road trip that support the above. Evidence from any 3rd parties that you may have encountered on your trip. Secondly, collate evidence that demonstrates that your partner did everything in her power to try to establish who was driving at the time of the offence (e.g. written request for any images of the front of the vehicle with the driver clearly visible).
(3) Seek legal advice. If your lawyer considers your partner's defence to be high risk, he/she could look into arranging a meeting with the police (without prejudice) to negotiate an out-of-court settlement. The police are under no obligation to provide this but may be willing as it saves time and cost and brings the case to an early conclusion. 3 points and a £100 fixed penalty is far better than 6 points and a fine of up to £1000.
I wish you and your partner luck with the case! |
Cheers Benny.
Spoke to two solicitors today (we get free advice through our respective TUs) and both have said that it’s a known issue and it basically falls to the discretion of the magistrate and how hard we tried to identify the driver (as you’ve mentioned).
Will let you know how I get on. If I end up in the Scrubs can one of you throw a couple of Balti pie over the wall after the Burnley match.
If I can’t eat it I can use it to fend off rapists. | | | |
| Non QPR - Summons on 02:12 - Nov 19 with 1318 views | LazyFan |
| Non QPR - Summons on 00:22 - Nov 17 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Cheers Benny.
Spoke to two solicitors today (we get free advice through our respective TUs) and both have said that it’s a known issue and it basically falls to the discretion of the magistrate and how hard we tried to identify the driver (as you’ve mentioned).
Will let you know how I get on. If I end up in the Scrubs can one of you throw a couple of Balti pie over the wall after the Burnley match.
If I can’t eat it I can use it to fend off rapists. |
Tell em you're not sure, but you both recall it was each of you who was driving at that time, meaning you both claim you were caught and not the other one and will accept the punishment of the courts.
Now they will have to prove which one of you it was, contest the other party's claim and claim you're the guilty one and the other have remembered it wrong.
Let's see what the magistrate says then. |  |
| |
| Non QPR - Summons on 23:01 - Nov 19 with 1155 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Non QPR - Summons on 00:22 - Nov 17 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Cheers Benny.
Spoke to two solicitors today (we get free advice through our respective TUs) and both have said that it’s a known issue and it basically falls to the discretion of the magistrate and how hard we tried to identify the driver (as you’ve mentioned).
Will let you know how I get on. If I end up in the Scrubs can one of you throw a couple of Balti pie over the wall after the Burnley match.
If I can’t eat it I can use it to fend off rapists. |
I'll be sure to hide a file in the Balti pie. | | | |
| Non QPR - Summons on 01:38 - Nov 24 with 942 views | CiderwithRsie |
Hi Bazza, a bit late to this, and I'd like you to double check what I say on this because it is many, many years since I had to know any of this but:
1. There's a difference between a defence ("I didn't do it" or "I did what they say but that's not a crime") and mitigation ("I did it but I don't deserve to be punished, or at least not much.") The court has to decide on both things and in the case of a Magistrate Court offence the same guy(s) will be doing both things.
The key point here is that legally it is perfectly possible to be bang to rights and walk out without any further action if the court decides you shouldn't be punished. Now, given the nasty way the actual offence is defined, the latter might be your best chance, and in that case the issue of "I tried to do the right thing" is very much relevant. You also generally get brownie points for not buggering about and wasting the court's time by trying to mount a defence which is not a runner.
2. The penalty for the offence is up to £1,000 fine and six penalty points. The "up to" bit is pretty important in terms of mitigation. My recollection (and this is where it'd be great if you could get confirmation via legal advice from your TU) is that for that almost anything can be mitigation so long as it is relevant and might get you sympathy.
3. The six points is slightly different. The law is set up to avoid loads of arguments about mitigation by limiting it to "special reasons."
4. "Special reasons" must:
be a mitigating or extenuating circumstance;
not amount in law to a defence to the charge;
be directly connected with the commission of the offence;
be one which the court ought properly to take into consideration when imposing sentence.
The thing to note here is that the fact that you genuinely don't remember who was driving, and tried to answer to the best of your ability, is not a defence means that it can be a "Special Reason."
"Directly connected to the commission" means it can't be some sort of general "poor little me" thing (though that's OK for the fine), you've got to be saying "yeah I did it but this is why." So again I think the fact that you just don't bloody remember and it's so long ago that most people wouldn't, that you were swapping about the driving lots (for a credible reason) may well be relevant. Remember that at this point the crime isn't the actual driving, it's the failure to provide the information, so it is the failure to give information for which you're trying to show there's a Special Reason not to give you points.
I don't know if your legal advice covered Special Reasons or if you get a chance to ask them again about it, but if you can I recommend you do.
If not, the standard textbook on this (which you might be able to get via your local library or Citizens Advice, but failing that is available from Amazon at an eye-watering £53 (less for kindle) is Blackstone's Magistrates Court Handbook.
PS there's a separate category of argument which applies if the penalty points reaches the limit by which you get a ban, when you can ask not to get banned due to "exceptional circumstances" as to why you need to not be banned, but I'm presuming there's no risk of that since you've not mentioned it. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
