Received an NIP for a car I don't own?
Discussion
The experience of JustinP1 suggests that in general it's not as clear cut when actual practicalities and impracticalities enter the fray, as opposed to the theory. Unless you (BV, BertBert and battered) are suggesting that JP1 is a fantasist?
The idea that somebody could be convicted in their absence on the uncorroborated say so of a random person is curious to say the least. Could some bright spark not check the electoral roll or carry out the most basic of equivalent checks?
The idea that somebody could be convicted in their absence on the uncorroborated say so of a random person is curious to say the least. Could some bright spark not check the electoral roll or carry out the most basic of equivalent checks?
I assume that Justin had his conviction set aside, but if not I hope that he enjoyed the prison rissoles and/or the great prison sex. As noted above, anyone could accuse any of us of anything. I am not surprised that on occasion a rather clunky and bureaucratic system is induced to cock things up by the dishonest actions of a dishonest person (and/or by its own clunkiness). I would be more surprised if the occasional travesty could not be unwound.
Breadvan72 said:
Yes, all of my notions are theoretical and I have zero practical experience of anything
Yes JP1 is a fantasist?Otherwise, and subsuequently, answering quesitons not asked - cool idea. it might even catch on in Court.
Breadvan72 said:
I haven't emerged from the bubble that I entered some time in the early 80s. Has anything happened?
Nice wibbling.JustinP1 said:
When this happened to me, they used the details from my DL from my stolen wallet.
Except in my case, they informed the police that I'd also moved address so I was written to at a house I'd never lived at too, and taken to court and convicted, of course without any knowledge.
Motoring law is donkey's ass shocker.Except in my case, they informed the police that I'd also moved address so I was written to at a house I'd never lived at too, and taken to court and convicted, of course without any knowledge.
Into each life a little rain must fall, but in turbobloke world it appears that there is a constant downpour of gloom, misery and OMG everything is brokenness. Does it not make you a tad gloomy being so gloomy all of the time about everything? Serious question! Suggested solution: go for a drive in a nice motah? [NB: warning: car content]
In other news: world revealed to be imperfect. Works sometimes, sometimes doesn't. Some things a bit crap, some things not. Continued on page 97.
In other news: world revealed to be imperfect. Works sometimes, sometimes doesn't. Some things a bit crap, some things not. Continued on page 97.
Breadvan72 said:
Into each life a little rain must fall, but in turbobloke world it appears that there is a constant downpour of gloom, misery and OMG everything is brokenness.
Wibbling not so good this time, overly long and too personalised. Breadvan72 said:
Does it not make you a tad gloomy being so gloomy all of the time about everything?
The post from JP1 is either what happened, or fantasy, your diversion into a personal wibble against me says nothing except how little you actually have to say.Breadvan72 said:
In other news: world revealed to be imperfect. Works sometimes, sometimes doesn't. Some things a bit crap, some things not. Continued on page 97.
The world is not enough 
checking an electoral roll appears to be too difficult or too much hassle for our variably credulous justice system faced with a tall yarn from the RK..."no not me guv, that chap over there, oh and he's moved address". Some numpty fell for it, unless and until JP1 gets back to us to say he made it all up. It's almost worth an attempt to see how far the numptiness will go, it looks entirely possible that Washington Irving, Irving Washington or John Yossarian oould be nominated and convicted in their absence given a plausible address, the chances of a processing office monkey having read Catch-22 must be remote.
Motoring law in practice is donkey's ass shocker.
I am not sure why you think that I think that JP1 has a rich and special fantasy life. Nothing that I have said could possibly be interpreted by a sane and rational person as suggesting that JP has made up his tale. I am sure that JP's story is true. What happened to him was mucho sucky. I assume that JP, being a sensible and capable bloke, sorted it out once he found out that he had been unjustly clobbered. It is highly regrettable that he was put to trouble by the system's imperfections.
I am not sure that checking the electoral roll would be a perfect solution, as quite a few people aren't on the roll, but still exist. If all police officers worked 24/7 for free, and/or we all paid 8000% tax, then maybe each case could be investigated by a crack team of sleuths each one of whom makes that Mr Holmes look like the rank fumbler that he is. But, alas, such is not the way.
One of the problems with any system of rules about anything is that there will always be some people who break these rules. Those people can cause hassle for the rest of us who tend not to break the rules. I am not sure that anyone can design a system that is 100% resistant to people being dodgy. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make systems as idiot proof and scumbag proof as possible, but I suggest that we have to be realistic in our expectations.
I am not sure that checking the electoral roll would be a perfect solution, as quite a few people aren't on the roll, but still exist. If all police officers worked 24/7 for free, and/or we all paid 8000% tax, then maybe each case could be investigated by a crack team of sleuths each one of whom makes that Mr Holmes look like the rank fumbler that he is. But, alas, such is not the way.
One of the problems with any system of rules about anything is that there will always be some people who break these rules. Those people can cause hassle for the rest of us who tend not to break the rules. I am not sure that anyone can design a system that is 100% resistant to people being dodgy. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make systems as idiot proof and scumbag proof as possible, but I suggest that we have to be realistic in our expectations.
Breadvan72 said:
I am not sure why you think that I think that JP1 has a rich and special fantasy life.
Ho Ho HoClearly, I don't. The opposite is the case, as I enquired of you, BertBert and battered as to whether you thought JP1 was a fantasist. My posts are based on the current view I hold - which is that JP1 is telling it as it happened.
Breadvan72 said:
Nothing that I have said could possibly be interpreted by a sane and rational person as suggesting that JP has made up his tale.
If you say so. In which case:1. NIP sent back with JP1 name (perverting the course of justice) and false address to boot
2. Justicial numptiness required no checks
3. Convicted in absence, expediency matters
4. Motoring law is a donkey's ass
Breadvan72 said:
I am sure that JP's story is true.
Me too.Breadvan72 said:
What happened to him was mucho sucky.
Making light, 'mucho sucky' how easy to type that must have been.Yes, but because JP1 is likely to be a robust chap with a sound constitution (like your good self, presumably) maybe this clouded your view of what this ramshackle motoring law does to people.
I have no axe to grind in this. Having held a clean driving licence for 35 years I've never had a NIP, real or perverted, never had points for speeding nor have I attended any of the propaganda courses on offer these days.
What I do have is experience of what this donkey's ass of a motoring law sledgehammer does to people who aren't nuts. Through voluntary work I've supported (precisely that, not legally, just humanely) numerous middle aged and elderly couples in receipt of a NIP for speeding, who carried out due diligence but were ultimately so scared and stressed that one of them fessed up to 'start to stop the stress' usually the male. The result isn't always like JP1's stoic acceptance of bizarre justicial numptiness.
This has without doubt led to innocent parties being found guilty and numerous guilty parties going unpenalised, within automated enforcement of minor speed offences.
Where due diligence over the driver's identity has been carried out and disclosed, such that the driver could not be identified, even so it could and often did go all the way before the case was dropped, keeping the pressure on for somebody to roll over (expedience not justice). In one case that I had no contact with where a husband and wife carried out due diligence 'to no avail' but didn't attend Court, both have been convicted in their absence of S172 offences. Barking.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 2nd August 09:02
BertBert said:
Send it back with a letter saying not me.
Have a cigar, go on holiday.
Bert
Quite possibly this couple were away on holiday at the time they were convicted in their absence after each completed and sent back their S172.Have a cigar, go on holiday.
Bert
Motoring Law Blog said:
In a recent case heard at Exeter Magistrates Court, both a husband and wife were convicted, fined, and had their licences endorsed with six penalty points after magistrates found that they had failed to identify who had been driving their vehicle.
The case involved the couple’s vehicle being clocked speeding, following which, the usual Notice requesting information to identify the driver was sent to the wife as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.
As both she and her husband would use the vehicle and indeed had both used the vehicle that day, she could not recall whether she or her husband had been driving at the relevant point in time.
Photographic evidence, whilst identifying the vehicle concerned, failed to identify the driver.
As a result, her husband was also sent a Notice to identify the driver, with a similar response.
As both were unable to identify who was driving at the time, summonses were served against each of them alleging failure to provide information as to the identity of the driver pursuant to S172 Road Traffic Act 1988, on the basis that it was for them to satisfy the court that they genuinely did not know who was driving at the time.
When the matter came before the court, neither attended with a view to establishing their case that they did not know who had been driving and they were convicted in their absence.
Hopefully the present predicament arising from assinine S172 shenanigans resolves satisfactorily for the OP. Due diligence OK, not being around to attend Court, not OK. Justicial numptiness rules OK.The case involved the couple’s vehicle being clocked speeding, following which, the usual Notice requesting information to identify the driver was sent to the wife as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.
As both she and her husband would use the vehicle and indeed had both used the vehicle that day, she could not recall whether she or her husband had been driving at the relevant point in time.
Photographic evidence, whilst identifying the vehicle concerned, failed to identify the driver.
As a result, her husband was also sent a Notice to identify the driver, with a similar response.
As both were unable to identify who was driving at the time, summonses were served against each of them alleging failure to provide information as to the identity of the driver pursuant to S172 Road Traffic Act 1988, on the basis that it was for them to satisfy the court that they genuinely did not know who was driving at the time.
When the matter came before the court, neither attended with a view to establishing their case that they did not know who had been driving and they were convicted in their absence.
I would have thought cases like the OP has found himself in a relatively easy for the police to sort out.The OP writes back with evidence he was not the driver,the police ask him to visit the station or come to his house for a statement, check all his evidence and take a photo.At this stage the police will know the OP was not the driver so they visit Mrs Patels house and tell her her named driver has denied he was driving your car.She will probably say hes lying.The police then ask Mrs Patel how she knows the OP and could she give a description of him which she would not be able to so the police arrest her for Perverting the course of justice.
btcc123 said:
I would have thought cases like the OP has found himself in a relatively easy for the police to sort out.The OP writes back with evidence he was not the driver,the police ask him to visit the station or come to his house for a statement, check all his evidence and take a photo.At this stage the police will know the OP was not the driver so they visit Mrs Patels house and tell her her named driver has denied he was driving your car.She will probably say hes lying.The police then ask Mrs Patel how she knows the OP and could she give a description of him which she would not be able to so the police arrest her for Perverting the course of justice.
Yes we can only hope that this happens, however it depends on what info 'Mrs Patel' holds. She may have documents that were lost or stolen or may, as happens, look on Farcebook etc and see pics. Take this example from earlier in the thread:JP1 said:
When this happened to me, they used the details from my DL from my stolen wallet.
A different 'Mrs Patel' will have seen the photo of JP1 on the DL.With people posting pics of themselves online via social media it can be easypeasy to (mis)identify somebody by giving a credible description of their appearance.
Then again, we're dealing with L'Oréal legislation here ("it's worth it") regardless of the human costs of generating miscarriages of justice.
turbobloke said:
btcc123 said:
I would have thought cases like the OP has found himself in a relatively easy for the police to sort out.The OP writes back with evidence he was not the driver,the police ask him to visit the station or come to his house for a statement, check all his evidence and take a photo.At this stage the police will know the OP was not the driver so they visit Mrs Patels house and tell her her named driver has denied he was driving your car.She will probably say hes lying.The police then ask Mrs Patel how she knows the OP and could she give a description of him which she would not be able to so the police arrest her for Perverting the course of justice.
Yes we can only hope that this happens, however it depends on what info 'Mrs Patel' holds. She may have documents that were lost or stolen or may, as happens, look on Farcebook etc and see pics. Take this example from earlier in the thread:JP1 said:
When this happened to me, they used the details from my DL from my stolen wallet.
A different 'Mrs Patel' will have seen the photo of JP1 on the DL.With people posting pics of themselves online via social media it can be easypeasy to (mis)identify somebody by giving a credible description of their appearance.
Then again, we're dealing with L'Oréal legislation here ("it's worth it") regardless of the human costs of generating miscarriages of justice.
I would imagine that friends and family may take the points for someone in exchange for cash but why would someone say that a complete stranger was driving their car as it would be very likely they would say they were not and could possibly have evidence they were somewhere else at the time.Dont these people realise that instead of a SAC,taking 3 points and a £100 fine they could end up in prison.
In JP1 case they had his details from his DL but also gave a false address so he never received the HIP to confirm he was not the driver and it went to court without his knowledge so a different to this case.I would imagine in such a case when JP1 realised what had happened ultimately the real owner of the car would be in the s**t.
Edited by btcc123 on Sunday 2nd August 10:22
btcc123 said:
turbobloke said:
btcc123 said:
I would have thought cases like the OP has found himself in a relatively easy for the police to sort out.The OP writes back with evidence he was not the driver,the police ask him to visit the station or come to his house for a statement, check all his evidence and take a photo.At this stage the police will know the OP was not the driver so they visit Mrs Patels house and tell her her named driver has denied he was driving your car.She will probably say hes lying.The police then ask Mrs Patel how she knows the OP and could she give a description of him which she would not be able to so the police arrest her for Perverting the course of justice.
Yes we can only hope that this happens, however it depends on what info 'Mrs Patel' holds. She may have documents that were lost or stolen or may, as happens, look on Farcebook etc and see pics. Take this example from earlier in the thread:JP1 said:
When this happened to me, they used the details from my DL from my stolen wallet.
A different 'Mrs Patel' will have seen the photo of JP1 on the DL.With people posting pics of themselves online via social media it can be easypeasy to (mis)identify somebody by giving a credible description of their appearance.
Then again, we're dealing with L'Oréal legislation here ("it's worth it") regardless of the human costs of generating miscarriages of justice.
btcc123 said:
I would imagine that friends and family may take the points for someone in exchange for cash but why would someone say that a complete stranger was driving their car as it would be very likely they would say they were not and could possibly have evidence they were somewhere else at the time.Dont these people realise that instead of taking 3 points and a £100 fine they could end up in prison.
Apparently not always! Or they think it'll never happen to them.See under 'Sh
thot Hotshot Huhne-the-Hopeless'.btcc123 said:
In JP1 case they had his details from his DL but also gave a false address so he never received the HIP to confirm he was the driver and went to court without his knowledge so a bit different to this case.I would imagine in such a case when JP1 realised what had happened ultimately the real owner of the car would be in the s**t.
Again, we can hope so, possibly JP1 has further info on what happened next.Whatever it was, JP1 had an unjust motoring conviction to deal with. Evidently he coped OK, some otherwise law-abiding sons and daughters of gentlefolk are not so robust and can become ill from stress merely through the pressure being under the cosh of a sledgehammer law by virtue of not being able to identify the driver after reasonable due diligence.
The point I was making, with an example of an actual case from solicitors' motoring law blog content, is that posting off a response and essentially forgetting about it (wandering off on holiday at whatever point in time) is risky and hopelessly optimistic in this context.
While due diligence of a high order is required of innocent people, any sense of due diligence from the prosecuting i.e. Court side went AWOL a long time ago in how S172 is applied and enforced in motoring cases.
turbobloke said:
The experience of JustinP1 suggests that in general it's not as clear cut when actual practicalities and impracticalities enter the fray, as opposed to the theory. Unless you (BV, BertBert and battered) are suggesting that JP1 is a fantasist?
The idea that somebody could be convicted in their absence on the uncorroborated say so of a random person is curious to say the least. Could some bright spark not check the electoral roll or carry out the most basic of equivalent checks?
Oh, I seem to have set the cat among the pigeons so I'll add some more details. This is from the bundle of paperwork that I was sent when I asked for it:The idea that somebody could be convicted in their absence on the uncorroborated say so of a random person is curious to say the least. Could some bright spark not check the electoral roll or carry out the most basic of equivalent checks?
911 driver in Southampton said that someone in Burnley was driving their car. That person in Burnley then suggested that they in turn lent that first parties new 911 to me.
That second party used my driving licence number to nominate me, and put my address as a totally unconnected address in Burnley.
So, Hampshire Police wrote to me in Burnley three times with no reply. Then the court wrote to me, asking whether I'd plead guilty, no reply. Court date, no reply.
Hampshire Police then spent hours writing out a witness statement for the court to convict me for not replying, outlining all the times the wrote to me in Burnley, along with a photocopy of my new driving licence, which showed that:
1) I do not live in Burnley.
2) I have a new licence number because the licence number that the Burnley scammer supplied was from the licence that was reported stolen 2 years ago.
So, clearly, 'Sherlock' of Hampshire's finest that spent hours collating this evidence for the court did not think any of this was strange. Nor did the court seemingly bat an eyelid when I didn't turn up to court.
The DVLA in their wisdom wrote to me as of course they were sensible enough to contact me at the address on my driving licence, telling me I had 14 days before my licence is being revoked, as I didn't hand it in at court.
I had to take a morning off work to do a Statutory Declaration at my local mags court. Here, in front of the mags, the Clerk grilled me in the dock in a very disbelieving way when I informed him that I did not receive any paperwork, and even asked me if I'd driven that car previously - despite that fact that had nothing to do with what I was pleading.
I then had to inform the DVLA that I had done this, and the court and DVLA spoke so my licence could be unrevoked with about 24 hours to spare.
Outcome was that my time was royally wasted, I didn't receive any kind of apology from Hampshire, and my local court was actually trying to 'catch me out' rather than believe a very obviously genuine story.
Bigends said:
Simple solution really MrsPatel will need to explain how she knows the ip and the circumstances surrounding him being in her car - plus when it was borrowed and returned
On topic: fingers crossed that the OP returns with news of a happy ending, nfa for them and jail for the perp.In general, given this (with my emphasis:
Criminal Trial section of Legal Beagle website said:
Can a person be forced to give evidence?
A person can be compelled (forced) to give attend court and give evidence if they have been deemed competent to do so. The exceptions to this rule are the accused himself, the accused’s spouse and other individuals who are not deemed competent to give evidence.
The accused’s spouse can only be compelled to give evidence against him on the Prosecution’s behalf in limited circumstances as follows:
*If the offence the accused is being tried for involves an assault or threat of injury to the spouse (PACE 1984 s.80 (3) (a));
*In the offence involves an assault on or threat of injury to an individual under the age of 16 (PACE s.80 (3) (a));
*If the offence is a sexual offence committed in relation to an individual under the age of 16 (PACE s.80 (3) (b);
*If the offence is an offence that consists of attempting or conspiring to commit or of assisting, instructing, appropriating or encouraging the commission of any of the aforementioned offences (PACE s. 80 (3) (c)
Apparently, driving safely on a clear open motorway can be sufficiently heinous as to equal the above exceptions...recalling that speeding is an absolute offence, acting safely is irrelevant A person can be compelled (forced) to give attend court and give evidence if they have been deemed competent to do so. The exceptions to this rule are the accused himself, the accused’s spouse and other individuals who are not deemed competent to give evidence.
The accused’s spouse can only be compelled to give evidence against him on the Prosecution’s behalf in limited circumstances as follows:
*If the offence the accused is being tried for involves an assault or threat of injury to the spouse (PACE 1984 s.80 (3) (a));
*In the offence involves an assault on or threat of injury to an individual under the age of 16 (PACE s.80 (3) (a));
*If the offence is a sexual offence committed in relation to an individual under the age of 16 (PACE s.80 (3) (b);
*If the offence is an offence that consists of attempting or conspiring to commit or of assisting, instructing, appropriating or encouraging the commission of any of the aforementioned offences (PACE s. 80 (3) (c)
Legal Beagle website also said:
If the accused is not being charged in relation to any of the above circumstances then the accused’s spouse is only compellable to give evidence on behalf of the accused and not against him.
By the same token, not identical but in principle, nobody should be forced - by word of mouth, or in writing under threat of an S172 offence - to assist the authorities in the investigation and prosecution of themselves as RK, or their spouse. The police and anyone else involved should get on with proving the identity, and presence at the scene, and the guilt, of any accused party - if they cannot then that's that.
What happens now is disproportionate and unjust.
JustinP1 said:
Oh, I seem to have set the cat among the pigeons so I'll add some more details. This is from the bundle of paperwork that I was sent when I asked for it:
911 driver in Southampton said that someone in Burnley was driving their car. That person in Burnley then suggested that they in turn lent that first parties new 911 to me.
That second party used my driving licence number to nominate me, and put my address as a totally unconnected address in Burnley.
So, Hampshire Police wrote to me in Burnley three times with no reply. Then the court wrote to me, asking whether I'd plead guilty, no reply. Court date, no reply.
Hampshire Police then spent hours writing out a witness statement for the court to convict me for not replying, outlining all the times the wrote to me in Burnley, along with a photocopy of my new driving licence, which showed that:
1) I do not live in Burnley.
2) I have a new licence number because the licence number that the Burnley scammer supplied was from the licence that was reported stolen 2 years ago.
So, clearly, 'Sherlock' of Hampshire's finest that spent hours collating this evidence for the court did not think any of this was strange. Nor did the court seemingly bat an eyelid when I didn't turn up to court.
The DVLA in their wisdom wrote to me as of course they were sensible enough to contact me at the address on my driving licence, telling me I had 14 days before my licence is being revoked, as I didn't hand it in at court.
I had to take a morning off work to do a Statutory Declaration at my local mags court. Here, in front of the mags, the Clerk grilled me in the dock in a very disbelieving way when I informed him that I did not receive any paperwork, and even asked me if I'd driven that car previously - despite that fact that had nothing to do with what I was pleading.
I then had to inform the DVLA that I had done this, and the court and DVLA spoke so my licence could be unrevoked with about 24 hours to spare.
Outcome was that my time was royally wasted, I didn't receive any kind of apology from Hampshire, and my local court was actually trying to 'catch me out' rather than believe a very obviously genuine story.
So the Hampshire police wrote to you in Burnley three times with no reply,then the court wrote to you about your plead no reply and again for the court date and no reply.911 driver in Southampton said that someone in Burnley was driving their car. That person in Burnley then suggested that they in turn lent that first parties new 911 to me.
That second party used my driving licence number to nominate me, and put my address as a totally unconnected address in Burnley.
So, Hampshire Police wrote to me in Burnley three times with no reply. Then the court wrote to me, asking whether I'd plead guilty, no reply. Court date, no reply.
Hampshire Police then spent hours writing out a witness statement for the court to convict me for not replying, outlining all the times the wrote to me in Burnley, along with a photocopy of my new driving licence, which showed that:
1) I do not live in Burnley.
2) I have a new licence number because the licence number that the Burnley scammer supplied was from the licence that was reported stolen 2 years ago.
So, clearly, 'Sherlock' of Hampshire's finest that spent hours collating this evidence for the court did not think any of this was strange. Nor did the court seemingly bat an eyelid when I didn't turn up to court.
The DVLA in their wisdom wrote to me as of course they were sensible enough to contact me at the address on my driving licence, telling me I had 14 days before my licence is being revoked, as I didn't hand it in at court.
I had to take a morning off work to do a Statutory Declaration at my local mags court. Here, in front of the mags, the Clerk grilled me in the dock in a very disbelieving way when I informed him that I did not receive any paperwork, and even asked me if I'd driven that car previously - despite that fact that had nothing to do with what I was pleading.
I then had to inform the DVLA that I had done this, and the court and DVLA spoke so my licence could be unrevoked with about 24 hours to spare.
Outcome was that my time was royally wasted, I didn't receive any kind of apology from Hampshire, and my local court was actually trying to 'catch me out' rather than believe a very obviously genuine story.
I know there may be some people who do not reply to these type of letters but would have thought that after Hampshire police had not had a reply to their three letters they would ask the Burnley police to check out the address to confirm you lived there.
Tb, why not argue the point to the Supreme Court and the Court of Human Rights, then? Oooops, it has already been argued, unsuccessfully.
There are many real injustices in the world (and even just in the UK, disregarding what goes on elsewhere). Many of these warrant getting worked up about. Getting a speeding ticket isn't one of those, in my opinion. Why not use your campaigning energies to right some real wrongs? I am not kidding. I think that your fixation on speed enforcement as a major blight on civilization is disproportionate. There are graver threats to our civil liberties than this.
When people who are not confident and articulate and may lack resources get unfairly clobbered by the legal process, one injustice is that they may not be able to find a competent lawyer to represent them, thanks to legal aid cuts that have pared an already slender joint to the bone. The competent lawyer need not be and should not be OMG megafees Fat Cat Daily Mail outrage hoo hah shocka, but a reasonably competent person paid a reasonable amount for doing a professional job would do. PS: before anyone asks, I don't do legal aid work and have no personal dog in that particular fight.
There are many real injustices in the world (and even just in the UK, disregarding what goes on elsewhere). Many of these warrant getting worked up about. Getting a speeding ticket isn't one of those, in my opinion. Why not use your campaigning energies to right some real wrongs? I am not kidding. I think that your fixation on speed enforcement as a major blight on civilization is disproportionate. There are graver threats to our civil liberties than this.
When people who are not confident and articulate and may lack resources get unfairly clobbered by the legal process, one injustice is that they may not be able to find a competent lawyer to represent them, thanks to legal aid cuts that have pared an already slender joint to the bone. The competent lawyer need not be and should not be OMG megafees Fat Cat Daily Mail outrage hoo hah shocka, but a reasonably competent person paid a reasonable amount for doing a professional job would do. PS: before anyone asks, I don't do legal aid work and have no personal dog in that particular fight.
btcc123 said:
JustinP1 said:
Oh, I seem to have set the cat among the pigeons so I'll add some more details...
So the Hampshire police wrote to you in Burnley three times with no reply,then the court wrote to you about your plead no reply and again for the court date and no reply.I know there may be some people who do not reply to these type of letters but would have thought that after Hampshire police had not had a reply to their three letters they would ask the Burnley police to check out the address to confirm you lived there.
For example, the mags might have asked the police officer present to give evidence why they thought I lived in Burnley, as my driving licence says something else.
One problem may be that, because of all the anarchist solipsist selfish middle class git man over board motorist websites that encourage people to smash the State, speak truth unto power and stick it to The Man by not responding to S172 notices, parking wherever they like and so on, Plod may unwisely assume that a notice is being deliberately ignored, but, still, Plod should check. That leads to the question of resources. Who pays for all this checking upping? See also : traffic police instead of speed cameras. Fine idea if traffic police are free. Ooops, they're not.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 2nd August 14:54
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff