Speeding - Incorrect details on 'Conditional Offer'
huwlloyd...@hotmail.com
This is my first post and I would be grateful for any advice &
assistance.
I received a NIP for an alleged speeding offence and as I was the
driver of the car - registered in my name - filled it in with my full
name in the appropriate part of the form and sent it back.
As expected, I then received a 'Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty',
which shows an abbreviated form of my first name, omits my middle name
and correctly spells my surname (example - not my real name - William
Harold Peters quoted as Will Peters).
Does this invalidate the 'Offer' form as I am not (Will Peters), but
(William Harold Peters).
If so (or not) what is the relevant part of the law that states that
such forms must (or not as the case may be) correctly addressed.
Steve Walker
The general rule in criminal law is that any mistake which materially
disavantages the subject's ability to defend themself is taken seriously -
it would be excluded from evidence, or the proceedings dropped altogether.
A minor issue such as the one you are describing would not remotely fall
into this category. You are not disadvantaged.
Specific to your case, the 'Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty' is exactly
that. It's an invitation to settle out of court, which you can accept or
decline. The fact that your name is incompletely recorded on it is not
significant - if you send them a cheque it will be accepted. So again you
are not disadvantaged, and there's no 'loophole' defence at this stage.
If you do not believe that you were speeding at that time and place, then
you should say so. A court hearing will then be held, at which you can
defend your reputation against this allegation. If on the other hand you
do believe that you were speeding at that time and place, and you've named
yourself in the NIP, then it's probably sensible to pay up and move on.
R
<huwlloyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:76b9315b-6968-4983...@z5g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Most of the excuses/reasons/get-out-of-jail cards can be found on Pepipoo.
Google for it and read through the forums.
Peter Crosland
If you don't accept it as it is within the time scale it will cost you more!
Peter Crosland
Alan Smith
Can I go off at a tangent here, over 15 years ago I was caught on a
camera doing 92mph in a 70mph zone. It was at 15:45 on a particular day,
no arguments I was speeding, I eventually got a summons to appear in
court, which I duly did & pleaded guilty received a fine & points which
I paid. However on the summons the time stated was 03:45 on the same day
at that time I was tucked up in bed in a hotel in Glasgow & could
logically prove it by my checkout time. Should I have actually pleaded
not guilty as at that time I wasn't where I was accused of being. It's
all academic now, but I have always wondered.
Alan...
salesguy
"Alan Smith" <al...@none.com> wrote in message news:gtik1l$tf2$1...@aioe.org...
If it was clear that it was indicating 03:45 (AM) then I would have had a
crack at it....
SalesGuy
Alan Crowder
> doing 92mph in a 70mph zone. It was at 15:45 on a particular day, no
> arguments I was speeding, I eventually got a summons to appear in court,
> which I duly did & pleaded guilty received a fine & points which I paid.
> However on the summons the time stated was 03:45 on the same day at that
> time I was tucked up in bed in a hotel in Glasgow & could logically prove
> it by my checkout time. Should I have actually pleaded not guilty as at
> that time I wasn't where I was accused of being. It's all academic now,
> but I have always wondered.
Same as you, some 25 years ago i was accused of riding a motorbike on
a cycle track at 8.15am on a particular date, I do admit i was there but it
was 7.15
and I could prove to the court by my clock card, I wrote and they cancelled
the
charge.
No idea of that would be the case now though.
Alan (another one)
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>
>Can I go off at a tangent here, over 15 years ago I was caught on a
>camera doing 92mph in a 70mph zone. It was at 15:45 on a particular day,
>no arguments I was speeding, I eventually got a summons to appear in
>court, which I duly did & pleaded guilty received a fine & points which
>I paid. However on the summons the time stated was 03:45 on the same day
>at that time I was tucked up in bed in a hotel in Glasgow & could
>logically prove it by my checkout time. Should I have actually pleaded
>not guilty as at that time I wasn't where I was accused of being. It's
>all academic now, but I have always wondered.
I think that in that case, you would have had a good chance of getting
away with it. Whether you should have, of course, is another matter.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
John Anderton
>Most of the excuses/reasons/get-out-of-jail cards can be found on Pepipoo.
>Google for it and read through the forums.
Unless that site has changed a lot in the past two years, the forums
will be full of people coming up with all sorts of cunning plans which
have no legal basis.
I'm glad to see they're no longer recommending their "PACE" defence
which they were *very* keen on some time ago but turned out to have no
legal standing. (Something that was relatively obvious to anyone who
took the trouble to research it but was missed by their legal
"experts")
Cheers,
John
R
"John Anderton" <John1_anderto...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rdktv4d8rq5uop7cn...@4ax.com...
No one suggested that there were any cunning plans which worked.
There are plenty of people in the same situation and have experiences of
good and bad results in there which might give an insight into what happens
and what to do.
huwlloyd...@hotmail.com
Many thanks for the postings (and relevant tangents) folks - much
appreciated and puts it all into context.
John Anderton
>
>No one suggested that there were any cunning plans which worked.
The folks on Pepipoo certainly used to. They were absolutely convinced
at one time that their "PACE defence" was a legal loophole.
>There are plenty of people in the same situation and have experiences of
>good and bad results in there which might give an insight into what happens
>and what to do.
And, on that site, a lot of people who were akin to "the man in the
pub" - convinced they knew the law and encouraging others to try
"legal" defences which could trap the unwary into landing in more
trouble,
Cheers,
John
R
True, and this differs from this newsgroup how?
Jon Ribbens
>> And, on that site, a lot of people who were akin to "the man in the
>> pub" - convinced they knew the law and encouraging others to try
>> "legal" defences which could trap the unwary into landing in more
>> trouble,
>
> True, and this differs from this newsgroup how?
Fewer people disagree with them when they do so?