Beating the System - thanks to the System.
Discussion
OK so it’s a bit of a ramble. It might appeal to those without attention deficit disorder.
So............last Christmas I was stopped in North West Wales in the works Mercedes Vito on way to see old dear.
Nasty little jumped up trafpol (the kind who lets the whole side down) who's whole car was concealed in specially-built trap on dual carriageway. Reported me for 91 mile/h. I was ready to accept 78-86 as I was overtaking safely an Irish 44 tonne meat artic racing for the port. After filling out a FPN he smiled at me, ripped it up and said "Its not a 'car derived van' is it ?" I agreed " It’s a dual purpose vehicle". " No such thing, It’s an LGV" insisted he. He said he was going to report me for a speed equivalent to 101 mile/h and it would have to go to court. He showed me his LTI 20-20 ' Dodgyscope', without video. (TI-2020 - a well known American piece of crap imported by one Frank Garett, millionaire, ex trafpol and defended by Home office even though it has been rejected in several US states and exposed as frequently inaccurate by Trevor McDonald on the BBC)
I told him he was wrong, the vehicle was a dual purpose vehicle and I'd see him in court.
Having successfully fought 10 FPNs ( some advising others ) and achieved 8 wins and a draw I have a clean licence and might have accepted the FPN.
Summonsed in June, 6 days before the 6 month time limit. PC had written in evidence that the vehicle was a 'Goods Van/Minibus' ( really, at the same time ?!) and that I had an 'anti-police attitude' A bit off the mark here - I'm not anti police per se but I was certainly anti that little tw@t and am generally rather negative about North Wales trafpol with their 'F*** you ! We Rule! we'll get you!' attitude (-as described to me by one Cheshire off duty bobby
So I pleaded not guilty.
Summonsed to appear for pre trial review. Wasted 4 hours waiting outside but educated various younger motoring miscreants with advice as to how to fight the system. Finally called in last where a pleasant and helpful clerk and pedantic pompous CPS lady sat. Spelled out why I was pleading not guilty. Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regs 1986 specified what was a Dual Purpose Vehicle. If necessary I would have to survey the vehicle and confirm that it fitted the regs. She suggested that perhaps it had been modified. I asked her did she mean before or after the alleged offence. She mumbled vaguely and withdrew the remark. The clerk agreed that it certainly seemed that it was a DP vehicle. I suggested that I might plead guilty to speeding over a 70 mile/h limit and that it should be treated as a FPN ( £60 + 3 points). "Oh no no no no no !" She claimed that the police would advise on this new vehicle classification issue. She then found a printout from DVLA that showed it was " a panel van" and that was the end of it. I pointed out that if this was evidence I had not received it in the summons bundle and I stated that 'panel van' was printed next to a heading 'taxation class' and that had no relevance to a C&U Act definition which surely took precedence in any matter that was in doubt. She asked for an adjournment to take advise from the police; I queried this stating that in my ignorance of the law I had thought it was the job of the police to report and that of CPS to prosecute if they considered that to be 'in the public interest' She snickered a bit and said in some cases it was up to the police. But no way was she going to accept my argument. I gave her vehicle specifications and measurements from makers specifications 'to assist the CPS and the Court' The clerk thanked me and asked me to fill in a means form and change my plea to guilty. I said I'd consider it.
I received 2 more forms advising me of adjournments requested by the CPS and finally one demanding I attend whilst I was out of the country despite having advised the court beforehand. I wrote back requesting evidence from prosecution under disclosure.
Clerk wrote back to say CPS were still of the mind that 60 was the limit for the Vito. And I had to attend another pre trial review.
So I went.
And walked into the Mags court bowing to the bench to ask the clerk to consider listing my case early as I had been there since 09:30 and had urgent business that afternoon. Well....solicitors do that ! She actually did so but not before I had heard 2 fascinating cases where the police had stopped 3 dubious types who happened to have wads of cash with them. And one was unemployed but had a VW Passat. " Much too luxurious a car for someone in that position " The cops wanted another 3 months to scrape up some sort of a case against them. Well nice people use credit cards don't they ?
And some young lad who had shagged his underage girl friend on several occasions. Oh!, now he's a sex offender being committed to Crown court so he can be labelled a paedophile and a beast for the rest of his life. To make us feel a bit more righteous about our lives ?
And some stupid old couple who had had some tiff, he'd beaten her up, she'd phoned the cops, they'd sent 2 armed response teams and a chopper, he'd been arrested, grilled and bailed to live in a Midlands address. However the police had written the bail address street correctly but at a town near Liverpool. Careless mistakes sometimes happen. When humans write things down. The mags and clerk could not get their heads round the fact that Mr Geriatric Wifebeater had been in breach of bail conditions by more than 100 miles for at least a couple of months and that was illegal. I mean people get sent down for less than that!. Despite the fact it was the systems fault. Duhhhh. So Mrs Beaten Wife got up and said she had no idea that reporting him to the police would result in all this and she can't sleep and she only wanted him to have medical help and now he’d had it could they let him come and live back at home? Mrs Ponderous the senior mag had to conflab with her bench mates for at least 10 minutes before she pompously announced that Mr Wifebeater was being remanded on bail pending reports and the only bail condition was that he had to report to the something clinic 'as directed'. He seemed stunned .... “Can I visit thuh weiff then ?" Durrrrrr. He wobbled off on his walking stick.
And finally I was asked to enter the court. I requested to sit at the spare desk so I could take notes. The clerk bade me stand while she asked my name, my address and my favourite colour. Little people like to insist on these trivial powers to make them feel a bit more important don't they.
And she read out the charge. I maintained my Not Guilty plea. She turned to the CPS who looked for once like a pleasant and practicable chap. He looked at his file. Probably for the first time. She stared me down reading out pointedly the number of times this case had been adjourned. I pleasantly pointed out that 3 had been at the behest of the PS and once had been down to the fact that the case had been listed for a date I had given as out of the country. The CPS chap said it seemed that the police had had to advise what was the weight of the lorry. I mentioned it was a Vito Dualiner and the weight was in the specifications that should have been filed by Ms Controlfreak. "Oh yes.... this seems very detailed....." CPS carried on…. "Err Weight was mentioned but this was not clarified.... Is the vehicle for dualpurposes ? I can't understand the police response....it seems that they were asked but don't seem to have properly replied....Hmmmnnnn!" I wrote all this down. Clerk turns on me. "So the question is not whether you were speeding but what the speed limit for the vehicle is ?" Me "yes that is so but the speed limit is certainly the substantive issue..." Clerk " And what is your basis for disputing the applicable speed limit ?" Me " My position remains as I gave the court in July namely that the vehicle speed limit is defined by the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Act 1986 Section 13 a) and the vehicle itself meets the 4 criteria laid down in the 1984 RTA. And vehicles meeting these criteria in full are permitted to travel on DCs at up to 70 mile/h not 60". The clerk said " so can a new summons be issued if this is the case ?" CPS replied " A summons cannot be withdrawn after 6 months from the offence ( That I did not know ). So it can't be re-issued. I think our position is that it is a defective summons and we have no evidence with which to proceed " So the Clerk turns to me and says that the case will be dropped. I say " ....Tenjewberrymuds...! " and she says helpfully " I am obliged to tell you that you can submit a claim for costs - which I was already thinking about but I think that the cheque I receive may not be cashed but will stay in a glass picture frame until it fades"
So that’s it. I wrote all this because I am chuffed that I beat the system at last and thanks to the vindictive and arrogant nature of many of those attracted to this system they wasted shedloads of our money and will have to give some of it to me now instead of having £60 or even much more of my hardearned and taken a 25% bite out of my licence. I wrote this to share my experiences with others on the forums because people need encouragement to fight them. Especially when ACPO head Meredydd Hughes recent statement illegally attempts to intimidate those who do insist on their day(s) in court by suggesting the police will put a team together to rack up the costs tenfold and even if they get off they will be targetted by the police all the time. Real Nazi stuff eh ?.
And the licence stays clean.
So............last Christmas I was stopped in North West Wales in the works Mercedes Vito on way to see old dear.
Nasty little jumped up trafpol (the kind who lets the whole side down) who's whole car was concealed in specially-built trap on dual carriageway. Reported me for 91 mile/h. I was ready to accept 78-86 as I was overtaking safely an Irish 44 tonne meat artic racing for the port. After filling out a FPN he smiled at me, ripped it up and said "Its not a 'car derived van' is it ?" I agreed " It’s a dual purpose vehicle". " No such thing, It’s an LGV" insisted he. He said he was going to report me for a speed equivalent to 101 mile/h and it would have to go to court. He showed me his LTI 20-20 ' Dodgyscope', without video. (TI-2020 - a well known American piece of crap imported by one Frank Garett, millionaire, ex trafpol and defended by Home office even though it has been rejected in several US states and exposed as frequently inaccurate by Trevor McDonald on the BBC)
I told him he was wrong, the vehicle was a dual purpose vehicle and I'd see him in court.
Having successfully fought 10 FPNs ( some advising others ) and achieved 8 wins and a draw I have a clean licence and might have accepted the FPN.
Summonsed in June, 6 days before the 6 month time limit. PC had written in evidence that the vehicle was a 'Goods Van/Minibus' ( really, at the same time ?!) and that I had an 'anti-police attitude' A bit off the mark here - I'm not anti police per se but I was certainly anti that little tw@t and am generally rather negative about North Wales trafpol with their 'F*** you ! We Rule! we'll get you!' attitude (-as described to me by one Cheshire off duty bobby
So I pleaded not guilty.
Summonsed to appear for pre trial review. Wasted 4 hours waiting outside but educated various younger motoring miscreants with advice as to how to fight the system. Finally called in last where a pleasant and helpful clerk and pedantic pompous CPS lady sat. Spelled out why I was pleading not guilty. Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regs 1986 specified what was a Dual Purpose Vehicle. If necessary I would have to survey the vehicle and confirm that it fitted the regs. She suggested that perhaps it had been modified. I asked her did she mean before or after the alleged offence. She mumbled vaguely and withdrew the remark. The clerk agreed that it certainly seemed that it was a DP vehicle. I suggested that I might plead guilty to speeding over a 70 mile/h limit and that it should be treated as a FPN ( £60 + 3 points). "Oh no no no no no !" She claimed that the police would advise on this new vehicle classification issue. She then found a printout from DVLA that showed it was " a panel van" and that was the end of it. I pointed out that if this was evidence I had not received it in the summons bundle and I stated that 'panel van' was printed next to a heading 'taxation class' and that had no relevance to a C&U Act definition which surely took precedence in any matter that was in doubt. She asked for an adjournment to take advise from the police; I queried this stating that in my ignorance of the law I had thought it was the job of the police to report and that of CPS to prosecute if they considered that to be 'in the public interest' She snickered a bit and said in some cases it was up to the police. But no way was she going to accept my argument. I gave her vehicle specifications and measurements from makers specifications 'to assist the CPS and the Court' The clerk thanked me and asked me to fill in a means form and change my plea to guilty. I said I'd consider it.
I received 2 more forms advising me of adjournments requested by the CPS and finally one demanding I attend whilst I was out of the country despite having advised the court beforehand. I wrote back requesting evidence from prosecution under disclosure.
Clerk wrote back to say CPS were still of the mind that 60 was the limit for the Vito. And I had to attend another pre trial review.
So I went.
And walked into the Mags court bowing to the bench to ask the clerk to consider listing my case early as I had been there since 09:30 and had urgent business that afternoon. Well....solicitors do that ! She actually did so but not before I had heard 2 fascinating cases where the police had stopped 3 dubious types who happened to have wads of cash with them. And one was unemployed but had a VW Passat. " Much too luxurious a car for someone in that position " The cops wanted another 3 months to scrape up some sort of a case against them. Well nice people use credit cards don't they ?
And some young lad who had shagged his underage girl friend on several occasions. Oh!, now he's a sex offender being committed to Crown court so he can be labelled a paedophile and a beast for the rest of his life. To make us feel a bit more righteous about our lives ?
And some stupid old couple who had had some tiff, he'd beaten her up, she'd phoned the cops, they'd sent 2 armed response teams and a chopper, he'd been arrested, grilled and bailed to live in a Midlands address. However the police had written the bail address street correctly but at a town near Liverpool. Careless mistakes sometimes happen. When humans write things down. The mags and clerk could not get their heads round the fact that Mr Geriatric Wifebeater had been in breach of bail conditions by more than 100 miles for at least a couple of months and that was illegal. I mean people get sent down for less than that!. Despite the fact it was the systems fault. Duhhhh. So Mrs Beaten Wife got up and said she had no idea that reporting him to the police would result in all this and she can't sleep and she only wanted him to have medical help and now he’d had it could they let him come and live back at home? Mrs Ponderous the senior mag had to conflab with her bench mates for at least 10 minutes before she pompously announced that Mr Wifebeater was being remanded on bail pending reports and the only bail condition was that he had to report to the something clinic 'as directed'. He seemed stunned .... “Can I visit thuh weiff then ?" Durrrrrr. He wobbled off on his walking stick.
And finally I was asked to enter the court. I requested to sit at the spare desk so I could take notes. The clerk bade me stand while she asked my name, my address and my favourite colour. Little people like to insist on these trivial powers to make them feel a bit more important don't they.
And she read out the charge. I maintained my Not Guilty plea. She turned to the CPS who looked for once like a pleasant and practicable chap. He looked at his file. Probably for the first time. She stared me down reading out pointedly the number of times this case had been adjourned. I pleasantly pointed out that 3 had been at the behest of the PS and once had been down to the fact that the case had been listed for a date I had given as out of the country. The CPS chap said it seemed that the police had had to advise what was the weight of the lorry. I mentioned it was a Vito Dualiner and the weight was in the specifications that should have been filed by Ms Controlfreak. "Oh yes.... this seems very detailed....." CPS carried on…. "Err Weight was mentioned but this was not clarified.... Is the vehicle for dualpurposes ? I can't understand the police response....it seems that they were asked but don't seem to have properly replied....Hmmmnnnn!" I wrote all this down. Clerk turns on me. "So the question is not whether you were speeding but what the speed limit for the vehicle is ?" Me "yes that is so but the speed limit is certainly the substantive issue..." Clerk " And what is your basis for disputing the applicable speed limit ?" Me " My position remains as I gave the court in July namely that the vehicle speed limit is defined by the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Act 1986 Section 13 a) and the vehicle itself meets the 4 criteria laid down in the 1984 RTA. And vehicles meeting these criteria in full are permitted to travel on DCs at up to 70 mile/h not 60". The clerk said " so can a new summons be issued if this is the case ?" CPS replied " A summons cannot be withdrawn after 6 months from the offence ( That I did not know ). So it can't be re-issued. I think our position is that it is a defective summons and we have no evidence with which to proceed " So the Clerk turns to me and says that the case will be dropped. I say " ....Tenjewberrymuds...! " and she says helpfully " I am obliged to tell you that you can submit a claim for costs - which I was already thinking about but I think that the cheque I receive may not be cashed but will stay in a glass picture frame until it fades"
So that’s it. I wrote all this because I am chuffed that I beat the system at last and thanks to the vindictive and arrogant nature of many of those attracted to this system they wasted shedloads of our money and will have to give some of it to me now instead of having £60 or even much more of my hardearned and taken a 25% bite out of my licence. I wrote this to share my experiences with others on the forums because people need encouragement to fight them. Especially when ACPO head Meredydd Hughes recent statement illegally attempts to intimidate those who do insist on their day(s) in court by suggesting the police will put a team together to rack up the costs tenfold and even if they get off they will be targetted by the police all the time. Real Nazi stuff eh ?.
And the licence stays clean.
Edited by Richard C on Friday 6th October 11:06
Think I'd agree that Dualiner meets criteria for Dual Purpose Vehicle.
Which per the other thread (Deltaf's why is this) makes things even dafter as I see it the Vito Traveliner would have a lower permitted speed limit. Ref: higher kerb weight > 2040kgs preventing classification of DPV + too high max weight so can't be classed car derived van. Just to mention two issues. It also reinforces the points in that DeltaF thread.
I'd argue, and others may of course not agree, that this is not so much a case of winning the case but CPS losing it. Devil in the detail as always. If there is a possible defence, investigate it, shock horror probe it might just be right and person innocent. On t'other hand if possible defence can be closed off by having certain detail evidence or whatever another nail banged in the coffin.
Question to OP is this though, next trip to see the old dear will you be hacking across Brunstrop's patch at 90plus again?
Which per the other thread (Deltaf's why is this) makes things even dafter as I see it the Vito Traveliner would have a lower permitted speed limit. Ref: higher kerb weight > 2040kgs preventing classification of DPV + too high max weight so can't be classed car derived van. Just to mention two issues. It also reinforces the points in that DeltaF thread.
I'd argue, and others may of course not agree, that this is not so much a case of winning the case but CPS losing it. Devil in the detail as always. If there is a possible defence, investigate it, shock horror probe it might just be right and person innocent. On t'other hand if possible defence can be closed off by having certain detail evidence or whatever another nail banged in the coffin.
Question to OP is this though, next trip to see the old dear will you be hacking across Brunstrop's patch at 90plus again?
DvD - you are right. Construction & Use are Regs not an Act I had mislaid my file during an office move so I had to err try to remember what I'd written in my notes ( which I'd brought with me to the previous hearing). No need to find it now. The Vito isn't a 4WD but it doesn't need to be to be a DPV.
FiF is right yes, its crazy that a Vito Van and a Traveliner, both basically the same lumps of steel are limited to 60 on a DC while the Dualiner is OK. And certainly the dealer had no idea what it was. but then so much what passes for motoring law is a mess. I guess the lesson is confidently BS delivered can triumph. Re the 90 plus, no I don't beleive the LTI and am sure I wasn't even doing 90, just overtaking safely in excess of the NSL.
FiF is right yes, its crazy that a Vito Van and a Traveliner, both basically the same lumps of steel are limited to 60 on a DC while the Dualiner is OK. And certainly the dealer had no idea what it was. but then so much what passes for motoring law is a mess. I guess the lesson is confidently BS delivered can triumph. Re the 90 plus, no I don't beleive the LTI and am sure I wasn't even doing 90, just overtaking safely in excess of the NSL.
Nice one Richard!
Quoting for future reference
Richard C said:
The clerk said " so can a new summons be issued if this is the case ?" CPS replied " A summons cannot be withdrawn after 6 months from the offence ( That I did not know ). So it can't be re-issued. I think our position is that it is a defective summons and we have no evidence with which to proceed "
Quoting for future reference
I am at a loss and confused Richard (arn't I always?) and need to be defuggled.
The Vito:
http://tinyurl.com/k7pjo ???????
falls within the definition of a dual purpose vehicle under Reg 3 Con and Use, being able to carry passengers and load, ulw ne 2440k (1885k)and fits the second part of the criteria in relation to rigid roof, side/rear windows and distances from steering wheel to rear seat back and rear of the vehicle. (The other part has 4 wheel drive)
Because of the weight factor it cannot be classed as a car derived van.(Laden weight n/e 2 tonnes)
Now my notes on the speed limit under Schedule 6 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
defines these limits:
A passenger vehicle, motor caravan, or DUAL PURPOSE VEHICLE not drawing a trailer, being a vehicle with an unladen weight exceeding 3.05 tonnes (a dpv cannot exceed 2440k) or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers, if not exceeding 12 metres in length:
Motorway 70 mph Dual Carriageway 60 mph Other road 50mph
(and which is the same as a goods vehicle under 7.5 tonnes)
The same schedule mentions that as far as the definition of a DPV is concerned one has to take that as read under Con and Use.
So the above limits apply, i.e. 60 mph on a dual and not the 70 you mention?
How do you come to the decision that the limit is 70 ?
What am I missing?
dvd
The Vito:
http://tinyurl.com/k7pjo ???????
falls within the definition of a dual purpose vehicle under Reg 3 Con and Use, being able to carry passengers and load, ulw ne 2440k (1885k)and fits the second part of the criteria in relation to rigid roof, side/rear windows and distances from steering wheel to rear seat back and rear of the vehicle. (The other part has 4 wheel drive)
Because of the weight factor it cannot be classed as a car derived van.(Laden weight n/e 2 tonnes)
Now my notes on the speed limit under Schedule 6 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
defines these limits:
A passenger vehicle, motor caravan, or DUAL PURPOSE VEHICLE not drawing a trailer, being a vehicle with an unladen weight exceeding 3.05 tonnes (a dpv cannot exceed 2440k) or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers, if not exceeding 12 metres in length:
Motorway 70 mph Dual Carriageway 60 mph Other road 50mph
(and which is the same as a goods vehicle under 7.5 tonnes)
The same schedule mentions that as far as the definition of a DPV is concerned one has to take that as read under Con and Use.
So the above limits apply, i.e. 60 mph on a dual and not the 70 you mention?
How do you come to the decision that the limit is 70 ?
What am I missing?
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
I am at a loss and confused Richard (arn't I always?) and need to be defuggled.
The Vito:
http://tinyurl.com/k7pjo ???????
falls within the definition of a dual purpose vehicle under Reg 3 Con and Use, being able to carry passengers and load, ulw ne 2440k (1885k)and fits the second part of the criteria in relation to rigid roof, side/rear windows and distances from steering wheel to rear seat back and rear of the vehicle. (The other part has 4 wheel drive)
Because of the weight factor it cannot be classed as a car derived van.(Laden weight n/e 2 tonnes)
Now my notes on the speed limit under Schedule 6 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
defines these limits:
A passenger vehicle, motor caravan, or DUAL PURPOSE VEHICLE not drawing a trailer, being a vehicle with an unladen weight exceeding 3.05 tonnes (a dpv cannot exceed 2440k) or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers, if not exceeding 12 metres in length:
Motorway 70 mph Dual Carriageway 60 mph Other road 50mph
(and which is the same as a goods vehicle under 7.5 tonnes)
The same schedule mentions that as far as the definition of a DPV is concerned one has to take that as read under Con and Use.
So the above limits apply, i.e. 60 mph on a dual and not the 70 you mention?
How do you come to the decision that the limit is 70 ?
What am I missing?
dvd
Sounds like it's a good job you don't work for the CPS DvD The Vito:
http://tinyurl.com/k7pjo ???????
falls within the definition of a dual purpose vehicle under Reg 3 Con and Use, being able to carry passengers and load, ulw ne 2440k (1885k)and fits the second part of the criteria in relation to rigid roof, side/rear windows and distances from steering wheel to rear seat back and rear of the vehicle. (The other part has 4 wheel drive)
Because of the weight factor it cannot be classed as a car derived van.(Laden weight n/e 2 tonnes)
Now my notes on the speed limit under Schedule 6 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
defines these limits:
A passenger vehicle, motor caravan, or DUAL PURPOSE VEHICLE not drawing a trailer, being a vehicle with an unladen weight exceeding 3.05 tonnes (a dpv cannot exceed 2440k) or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers, if not exceeding 12 metres in length:
Motorway 70 mph Dual Carriageway 60 mph Other road 50mph
(and which is the same as a goods vehicle under 7.5 tonnes)
The same schedule mentions that as far as the definition of a DPV is concerned one has to take that as read under Con and Use.
So the above limits apply, i.e. 60 mph on a dual and not the 70 you mention?
How do you come to the decision that the limit is 70 ?
What am I missing?
dvd
DvD said:
A passenger vehicle, motor caravan, or DUAL PURPOSE VEHICLE not drawing a trailer, being a vehicle with an unladen weight exceeding 3.05 tonnes (a dpv cannot exceed 2440k) or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers, if not exceeding 12 metres in length:
The Mercedes Vito is a vehicle with unladen weight NOT exceeding 3.05 tonnes or 2.44 tonnes. Seating is 6 and it is 4.74m long. I think the rest of the criteria are
"Dual-purpose vehicle means a vehicle constructed or adapted for the carriage both of passengers and of goods or burden of any description, where the unladen weight does not exceed 2,040 kilograms, and which satisfies the following conditions as to construction:
- the vehicle must be permanently fitted with a rigid roof, with or without a sliding panel;
- the area to the rear of the driver's seat must -
- be permanently fitted with at least one row of transverse seats (fixed or folding) for 2 or more passengers and those seats must be properly sprung or cushioned and provided with upholstered back-rests; attached either to the seats or to a side or the floor of the vehicle; and
- be lit on each side and at the rear by a window or windows of glass or other transparent material having an area or aggregate area of not less than 1,850 square centimeters on each side and not less than 770, square centimeters at the rear; and
- the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the back-rests of the row of transverse seats satisfying the requirements specified in sub-paragraph b(i) above or, if there is more than one such row of seats, the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the back-rests of the rearmost such row must, when the seats are ready for use, be not less than one-third of the distance between the rear most part of the steering wheel and the rear most part of the floor of the vehicle"
All these criteria are met or exceeded. What is meant by permanently fitted is open to debate as the standard vehicle has rear seats which can be removed without tools; on delivery we fitted locking bolts to the seat releases to ensure that employees did not casually remove them and at the same time we fitted a safety grid to keep any tools etc in the rear load area. This means that tools are needed to remove the seats - same as the front ones.
DVD said:
I am at a loss and confused Richard (arn't I always?) and need to be defuggled
Maybe this once DVD but IMHO you are the most knowledgable on motoring law I have ever come across. 
And that includes some highly paid solicitors I made the mistake of using in the past. I'm not surprised that the CPS fellow looked at the issue and thought " I don't need this " and dropped it. I am confident that I would have won on the speed limit issue - but not the speeding offence which I had offered to concede. I know I may have had to go to appeal as mag's grasp of these issues and the "impartial" advice they get from some clerks is always a lottery. I am slightly disappointed that it did not go to trial having proceeded so far in order to clarify the issue as now some other PC may believe the vehicle is a van and pull one of us at over 60 on a DC. This whole area of motoring law is a complete archaic creaking mess which was never properly drafted at the time nor coherently thought out and should be streamlined now.
Edited by Richard C on Friday 6th October 10:57
Edited by Richard C on Wednesday 9th April 14:19
Thanks for the write-up. Well done, it just shows what nerve and tenacity is required to fight the system for such a trivial matter.
This sums it up for me "...I wrote all this because I am chuffed that I beat the system at last and thanks to the vindictive and arrogant nature of many of those attracted to this system they wasted shedloads of our money..."
This sums it up for me "...I wrote all this because I am chuffed that I beat the system at last and thanks to the vindictive and arrogant nature of many of those attracted to this system they wasted shedloads of our money..."
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff