Forum menu
I reckon 4 points & £150-£200
Thanks for that folks. I was sent a form asking for details of my income etc. I work as a self employed artist. My income is sporadic. I can work for six months preparing for an exhibition with little or no income and no guarentee of reward. I therefore couldnt realistically complete the form as it didnt make provision for peculiar nature of my work. I sent a covering letter with my plea to outline this.
As I said in the OP I admitted responsibility on the day and when charged. I renewed my MOT a couple of days after I was stopped. It was a week or so out of date.
Good luck.
Be subserviant and say how awfully sorry you are alot.
If the Magistrate or Judge is an old duffer do not mumble . Think about what you are going to say and project it to the questioner. Do not look at the floor and mumble into your boots with your hands in your pockets. I dont think shrugs will go down too well either.
As your lack of ability to show income / expenditure you might get less in fines and more points.
Be prepared for 6 points and £200 in fines.
Let us know how it goes .
and turn your phone off before going in
Best of luck
NO bullshine excuses. They have heard it all before.
Don't bother going, I'll phone em and tell them that you are exempt from prosecution as you're no longer on british soil but instead your riding the wave of awesomeness just off the south coast, forever, because you can.
So, I'm not beind bars. But the penalty is to be deferred to do an insurance check.
When I was stopped by the Police they did a vehicle check. It showed I had no MOT and also no insurance. Which I knew was incorrect, either a computer error with the Police or the Insurance company.
I had a week to produce the certificate. I couldnt find it so telephoned the Insurance company. They sent a replacement certificate. However it was dated from the date of my call, not the date of my policy renewal, 6 months earlier. I took my renewed MOT certificate and the unopened letter from the Insurance company to the Police station. A police officer then 'called' the insurance company who then informed me that they had no record of it. At that point I was charged. I immediatly telephoned the insurance company and they sent another certificate confirming I was indeed covered at the time I was stopped. I took this certificate the next day to the Police who photocopied it and assured me it would be forwarded to the relevant officers etc. Somewhere along the line it wasnt. I submitted a second copy with my letter pleading guilty to the speeding and no MOT to the PF.
The Crown representative hadn't reviewed the file which they'd had for over a month, which had a copy of the certificate, so the case is to be deferred for couple of weeks. I do not have to reattend the court. I'll be informed of my punishment by letter.
The Sherriff and the Clerk of the Court were both very helpful and smiling. My choice of a Gieves and Hawkes suit in preference to a shell suit, a baseball cap and chewing gum may have helped.
Thanks for all the help and advice on this.
Typical. Public servant goes into court completely unprepared and wastes public time and money by having to have your case re-tried. If you'd gone in to court so unprepared they'd have hung you out to dry.
Blimey! What a farce!
Your insurance company does not sound too hot either 😐
Typical. Public servant goes into court completely unprepared and wastes public time and money by having to have your case re-tried. If you'd gone in to court so unprepared they'd have hung you out to dry.
🙄
If you knew anything about the workload of an average PF you'd rephrase that.
Oh hang on you'd also need not to have the views of a dyed-in-the-wool Daily Fail reader, so you wouldn't.
When I was 18 I was stopped for speeding, 45 in a 40, was asked to see my documents so handed everything over knowing everything was in order. Only for the PC to say do you realsie you MOT's expired by 4 months? Hmmm, that was news to me but it was certainly the case. I was let off for no MOT and speeding and was only given a fixed penalty fine for not wearing a seat belt (because I wasn't wearing one either). Not all coppers are bad, but booked in next day for MOT, and wore seatbelt & obeyed speed limits from then on!
MOT for me was just a fine, no points.
It is the speeding one that I guess is the problem.
Still be surprised if that was more than 3 points..
J.
mcmoonter, if you are struggling post it over on pistonheads.com (speed and law section)- there are few like me over (****ing clueless) but also some traffic Police/serving officers and legal-types.
As for speeding, if its outside of a 30 limit its all fair game IMO.
Hora, this should never have gone to court. I feel I should be (have been)served with a fixed penalty & points (at the time). I'd be happy with that.
I wouldnt like to be the guy who overtook me on the A9 on Sunday night in the 911. Exiting a stretch of dual carriageway at well over 100mph in the rain. An unmarked Police car with headlights out appeared from behind an obscured vantage point. It overtook me then caught up to the Porche who then overtook overtook another car on double solid white lines on a blind corner. I saw them parked up in a layby a bit further on with lots of blue flashing lights. Thats got to be an instant ban.
If you knew anything about the workload of an average PF you'd rephrase that
No I wouldn't. If they or their office had organised themselves properly they would have had a court date set for when they knew they would be prepared. From McMoonters comments it would seem that another couple of weeks would have been appropriate.
Oh hang on you'd also need not to have the views of a dyed-in-the-wool Daily Fail reader, so you wouldn't
Seems abuse is the typical lefty knee-jerk reaction to legitimate criticism of a public service.
McMoonter I don't know how easy it is for you to attend court but it might be wise to attend the re-scheduled hearing anyway to hear what the crown representative has to say in case you need to rebut any of it.
Thats got to be an instant ban.
No such thing as an instant ban. But it will probably result in a ban. Wish I had seen this thread earlier as I could have given you some sound advice.
Just for a bit of balance I achieved 50mpg average on the motorway last night at a constant 60 in a 4WD subaru 
So you've done your bit for saving the planet hora - now go drive it like you stole it to re-address the balance... 😈
Gieves and Hawkes suit?
I'd have had you strung up from the ramparts for this crime alone! 😆
Hora, this should never have gone to court etc...
The guidelines for roadside speed checks (not cameras, no idea about them) are (for a 50mph limit) 51-59 = warning, 60-69 = ticket, 70 and over = report to PF. So you were close!
The guidelines for roadside speed checks (not cameras, no idea about them) are (for a 50mph limit) 51-59 = warning, 60-69 = ticket, 70 and over = report to PF. So you were close!
I've no idea how they 'calculated' my speed.
Does a Police car in a pursuit not have to have its blue flashing lights on if it is exceeding the speed limit?
Just caught this thread.
Has anybody mentioned what is going to happen when you get your next insurance renewal?
I got three points this year (mobile phone) £400 per year went to £700. For same cover same company. Even allowing for the general increase in the cost of car insurance ,it put the £60 fine into perspective!
Me neither, I was just mentioning what the instructions are which might explain why you didn't get a ticket. The use of lights and sirens is at the drivers discretion, so not obligatory in these circumstances. It is for him to justify if it all goes wrong though.
McMoonter - you seem to have omitted the insurance details from the original story. I assume you pled not guilty to that offence. You presumably presented your defence to that case in court today (in the form of a valid insurance certificate). Presumably the crown had no actual evidence that you didn't have insurance other than you failed to present a certificate at the time. I'm confused why this requires a further "check". If the prosecution don't offer evidence beyond reasonable doubt you should be acquitted.
Was it really a Sheriff? I'd have thought the JP court would have dealt with this. However from their (Police/PF) point of view I can see that this did warrant a court case. Speeding at 20 mph over a 50, no MoT, no Insurance (and/or failing to produce documentation) are a fairly significant collection of charges. The fact you wouldn't plead guilty to the charges for insurance would mean it had to go to court anyway.
McMoonter - you seem to have omitted the insurance details from the original story. I assume you pled not guilty to that offence. You presumably presented your defence to that case in court today (in the form of a valid insurance certificate). Presumably the crown had no actual evidence that you didn't have insurance other than you failed to present a certificate at the time. I'm confused why this requires a further "check". If the prosecution don't offer evidence beyond reasonable doubt you should be acquitted.
I presented the valid insurance certificate to the Police and was assured it would be passed on to the officer who charged me. I was surprised when the court summons arrived still listing it as a charge. I supplied the original to the PF with my plea. They copied it. I got the feeling today it was the first time their representative had seen it.
I'd still be liable for the speeding and no MOT charges.
EDIT I presented the Insurance Certificate in court. It was the same as the copy in the file.
Upthedowns I take it you'd be happy to see your taxes go up to allow PFs proper time to prepare cases like these?
Fiar enough complaining about a public service but the individuals that do it are extremely under resourced.
al, whilst i sympathise with the PF, and knowing you are from a legal background, I still think its poor behaviour.
If any of the rest of us had done our jobs as badly prepared prepared as that we'd be out on our arses.
Now mcmoonter has to go back again, wasting more of his time and money. Given he has limited / variable income its going to hit him harder as he's self employed, no?
f any of the rest of us had done our jobs as badly prepared prepared as that we'd be out on our arses.
what I am telling you is that they don't have the time because they have too many cases. I'm not excusing it but it may not have been the PF's fault (and of course it may have been).
Yep waste of Pete's time for sure.
I've no idea how they 'calculated' my speed.
Does a Police car in a pursuit not have to have its blue flashing lights on if it is exceeding the speed limit?
In short, a police officer can "form the opinion" that you're speeding; what it says on his speedo (which are often calibrated), your speed relative to other road users etc.
No - they don't even need to be in a police car. To claim the speed exemption they have to show the car was being used for a "policing purpose".
I presented the valid insurance certificate to the Police and was assured it would be passed on to the officer who charged me. I was surprised when the court summons arrived still listing it as a charge. I supplied the original to the PF with my plea. They copied it. I got the feeling today it was the first time their representative had seen it.I'd still be liable for the speeding and no MOT charges.
EDIT I presented the Insurance Certificate in court. It was the same as the copy in the file.
I'm confused why the Sheriff is waisting the court's time with some sort of second hearing? You've done your bit, the fiscal had his opportunity to present the evidence that you were not insured and your evidence was not new or surprising. You presented the same evidence to the police and the fiscal by post and he had it in his file.
It doesn't make sense to me, not only because its how I understood justice was supposed to work but because Sheriff's aren't known for having a lot of sympathy towards Fiscals with poorly prepared cases. Afterall your going to get fined for the MoT and speeding anyway so why waste everyones time with a "maybe" additional (but serious) charge if the fiscal hasn't presented any contradictory evidence.
I'd certainly want to be in court when it is reheard - given that your version of the story so far is they don't know their ar$e from their elbow - why do you think this will change. You need to be there with every bit of evidence (like the bank statements showing payments coming off, correspondence from insurer etc) just in case they claim that insurance had been cancelled or something and you aren't there to counter the argument.
Actually it may not do your fine for speeding and MoT any harm given the fact you've had to come back to court again because of the fiscal's inadequate case.
I received a £270 fine and 3 points on my license. I was preparing myself for worse.
Could've been much worse!
I suspect they took into account your magnificent log store?
mcmoonter - MemberI received a £270 fine and 3 points on my license. I was preparing myself for worse.
Pah - connections in high places? Should have been hung!
Only joking - sounds about right to me.
I suspect they took into account your magnificent log store?
I doubt I could offer pay my fine in kindling.
[i]No I wouldn't. If they or their office had organised themselves properly they would have had a court date set for when they knew they would be prepared.[/i]
I had the same with TfL, I turned up and they didn't (nor did they send any 'paperwork').
As far as the £270 fine goes, ask for time to pay, even if only to delay while they send and then process the forms.