summoned court for speeding
Discussion
Sheepshanks said:
The hire company named him. With speeding you're guilty unless you can prove you are innocent.
Not sure what the big deal is here? The OP suggested his family member has named the friend's friend, it's just that the letter didn't get there.
All he'll have to do is get the process restarted. Maybe the Court 'system' can intervene and get it restarted or perhaps, as it sounds like a load of baloney even if it's completely true, he'll have to appear in court and plead not guilty. Who knows, maybe he'll even get off?
Except that in that case he would be done for failing to provide details rather than speeding. Hence the S.192 questions.Not sure what the big deal is here? The OP suggested his family member has named the friend's friend, it's just that the letter didn't get there.
All he'll have to do is get the process restarted. Maybe the Court 'system' can intervene and get it restarted or perhaps, as it sounds like a load of baloney even if it's completely true, he'll have to appear in court and plead not guilty. Who knows, maybe he'll even get off?
Sheepshanks said:
His attitude is hardly likely to motivate OPs to keep threads updated, so he wins his little game by default.
Who cares if it's b
ks? There wouldn't be much content here if threads had to be sensible.
Why? Do you really think people react like that just because I'm a bit off? In reality they could make me look stupid if there was any truth to their stories, yet not one OP that I've ever called out has ever done that. I wonder why. Who cares if it's b
ks? There wouldn't be much content here if threads had to be sensible.Edited by LoonR1 on Monday 13th April 23:31
Sheepshanks said:
His attitude is hardly likely to motivate OPs to keep threads updated, so he wins his little game by default.
Who cares if it's bks? There wouldn't be much content here if threads had to be sensible.
Loon is a cynical bugger, and direct. And mostly right, though not always. You decide who is playing games.Who cares if it's b
ks? There wouldn't be much content here if threads had to be sensible.LoonR1 said:
Why? Do you really think people react like that just because I'm a bit off? In reality they could make me look stupid if there was any truth to their stories, yet not one OP that I've ever called out has ever done that. I wonder why.
I really CBA to go searching through threads but my re-collection is that you've been found to be wrong several times, even on insurance related threads where you've given what seems to be your opinion of what you'd like to happen.Having said that, why would anyone but the weakest personality feel the need to bother providing proof to a largely anonymous internet forum?
Sheepshanks said:
I really CBA to go searching through threads but my re-collection is that you've been found to be wrong several times, even on insurance related threads where you've given what seems to be your opinion of what you'd like to happen.
Having said that, why would anyone but the weakest personality feel the need to bother providing proof to a largely anonymous internet forum?
Ooooo nice little dig by proxy at the end. I've made errors sometimes in the legal side ofthings when giving an opinion that isn't insurance related, as GrimNasty loves to point out. My point in highlighting the threads that I see as fictitious is that they invariably are. Nobody ever provides proof. Having said that, why would anyone but the weakest personality feel the need to bother providing proof to a largely anonymous internet forum?
To excuse them providing proof by suggesting they have the "weakest personality" if they did is poor form. Many call for proof on here. There are quite a few threads where it's requested and its npbeen provided, the "kake speedimg sign" being one such example from yesterday. Are you saying that OP has the "weakest personality"? Custard tests abound on here, yet nobody provides evidence when I ask for it after being fairly direct and calling their thread a fake.
Something to ponder there.
Mr GrimNasty said:
LoonR1 said:
andburg said:
I do love your skepticism, means i don't feel like I'm the only one!
Thank you. These threads stand out a mile IMO. Then you jump on other posters for being repetitive and boring.
People come here to help one another, whether it sounds fishy or not,who gives a sh*t if people make spelling mistakes.
You can still understand the questionn, Now that I have time to respond let me tell you the circumstances.
My cousin is 25, it was during the day they had a BBQ party rounds a friends house, jackets keys were left in the house, one of the guys took the car to the shop to get stuff for the BBQ,
he took my cousins car as it was blocking the rest of the cars on the driveway, he took it without his permission but my cousin does not want to go down the route of saying he stole it etc as it was returned.
I assume this is an issue between my cousin and the hire company regarding who is allowed to drive etc. My cousin did fill in the form to identify the driver but the police are saying they never recvd it so that is why he is being summoned to court.
You can still understand the questionn, Now that I have time to respond let me tell you the circumstances.
My cousin is 25, it was during the day they had a BBQ party rounds a friends house, jackets keys were left in the house, one of the guys took the car to the shop to get stuff for the BBQ,
he took my cousins car as it was blocking the rest of the cars on the driveway, he took it without his permission but my cousin does not want to go down the route of saying he stole it etc as it was returned.
I assume this is an issue between my cousin and the hire company regarding who is allowed to drive etc. My cousin did fill in the form to identify the driver but the police are saying they never recvd it so that is why he is being summoned to court.
s2bounce said:
he took my cousins car as it was blocking the rest of the cars on the driveway, he took it without his permission but my cousin does not want to go down the route of saying he stole it etc as it was returned.
Surely that's going to open up a whole new can of worms if he's naming him as the driver.If it wasn't TWOC'd then he must have given him permission to drive it, without insurance.
If a summons has been issued the OP's cousin is going to have to answer to the charge.
The best thing he could do is seek professional advice on how best to deal with it.
Assuming it happended in England and Wales, start here - http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/
Use the free question link. Emma is a PH member.
The best thing he could do is seek professional advice on how best to deal with it.
Assuming it happended in England and Wales, start here - http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/
Use the free question link. Emma is a PH member.
Roo said:
Surely that's going to open up a whole new can of worms if he's naming him as the driver.
If it wasn't TWOC'd then he must have given him permission to drive it, without insurance.
If it was a routine fixed penalty and the processing had worked then it would have been fine - all they're after is the money.If it wasn't TWOC'd then he must have given him permission to drive it, without insurance.
Things may get somewhat more complicated now though.
The guy who drove the car supplied his details incase my cousin found damage to the car and my cousin has zero points on his licence.
The summons is for speeding not for failing to supply the drivers details, when he goes to court is it as simple as telling the court he returned the drivers details to the police and as he did not hear anything back from them he assumed the police had all the information they required?
The summons is for speeding not for failing to supply the drivers details, when he goes to court is it as simple as telling the court he returned the drivers details to the police and as he did not hear anything back from them he assumed the police had all the information they required?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff