why is my fine so large £425 for 90 in a 70mph?

[Brummmie]

I couldnt produce my paper bit when i went to pay my fixed penalty, simply lost it, and it was clean, and not seen it in years, so was cautioned and said it would go to court,road conditions.. 12.30am at night, busted by a plain Subaru, 90.01mph, lovely clear summers night, no other traffic. Triple lane carriageway.

[vonhosen]

The magistrates have a scale for the margin over the limit & you would only get a reduction in that if you were not able to afford the amount that you came up on that scale. They clearly consider that you could afford that.

[SS2.]

A combination of fine, costs and Victim Support Surcharge ?

Note that the fine should be proportional to your earnings and is likely to be in the range 25%-75% of your weekly income (gross, less tax and NI).

[Brummmie]

So if i was a scrounging scumbag, who has chosen to litter the planet with little chavs they cant afford, i would have been fined F*CK all sounds fair...

[vonhosen]

Brummmie said:

So if i was a scrounging scumbag, who has chosen to litter the planet with little chavs they cant afford, i would have been fined F*CK all sounds fair...

If they've firstly decided that it is suitable to be dealt with by a fine, they then have to look to the tariff. Once the tariff is decided they may have to adjust the amount payable due to the financial circumstances of the individual. That is because as they have opted for a fine, it must be able to be paid within a set period & they can't set it at a rate that it is obvious from the outset that the person will default on it (putting them at risk of imprisonment). That would be an abuse of process. If a fine is to be set, it has to be at a rate that is affordable.

The effect of £425 from your income will be far less dramatic than if it were from someone who earns a quarter what you do & as a proportion of it has far greater out goings.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 14th April 18:41

[grumbledoak]

In essence it's because they thought you could afford it. They have salaries and pensions to pay, don't you know.

[Puddenchucker]

You should have done 72 in a 20 (and 88 in a 30): only £150 + £100 costs.

Speedy Biker

[voyds9]

vonhosen said:

Brummmie said:

So if i was a scrounging scumbag, who has chosen to litter the planet with little chavs they cant afford, i would have been fined F*CK all sounds fair...

If they've firstly decided that it is suitable to be dealt with by a fine, they then have to look to the tariff. Once the tariff is decided they may have to adjust the amount payable due to the financial circumstances of the individual. That is because as they have opted for a fine, it must be able to be paid within a set period & they can't set it at a rate that it is obvious from the outset that the person will default on it (putting them at risk of imprisonment). That would be an abuse of process. If a fine is to be set, it has to be at a rate that is affordable.

The effect of £425 from your income will be far less dramatic than if it were from someone who earns a quarter what you do & as a proportion of it has far greater out goings.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 14th April 18:41

Unfortunately the same doesn't apply with prison sentences. Scrotes should get longer sentences as the dole isn't a job and it will still be waiting for them when thy get out.

[ZeroSum]

A smart thing to do is to phone and write to the central ticket office, missing counterparts are very common and they will usually grant you an extension to allow you to apply for a replacement.

The Police at my local station did not mention this, and simply said "nothing you can do, wait till it goes to court". Fortunately I ignored their good advice and got an extension and found my licence.

In the end my speeding ticket was voided as the officer issued with me with an incorrect type of FPN anyway! LOL

To the OP - the fine seems rather large, but I believe it is calculated on your salary.

[Brummmie]

I am a single bloke who runs two types of self employed income, i am no footballer but make ok money. makes my p!ss boil this, i am fuming. best bit is I was in a loan car this night, because some doddering old so and so opened a door in to my path and smashed the front end of my car up, but thats ok, if i would have been on my GSXR he could have killed me..

Edited by Brummmie on Wednesday 14th April 19:21

[_rubinho_]

voyds9 said:

vonhosen said:

Brummmie said:

So if i was a scrounging scumbag, who has chosen to litter the planet with little chavs they cant afford, i would have been fined F*CK all sounds fair...

If they've firstly decided that it is suitable to be dealt with by a fine, they then have to look to the tariff. Once the tariff is decided they may have to adjust the amount payable due to the financial circumstances of the individual. That is because as they have opted for a fine, it must be able to be paid within a set period & they can't set it at a rate that it is obvious from the outset that the person will default on it (putting them at risk of imprisonment). That would be an abuse of process. If a fine is to be set, it has to be at a rate that is affordable.

The effect of £425 from your income will be far less dramatic than if it were from someone who earns a quarter what you do & as a proportion of it has far greater out goings.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 14th April 18:41

Unfortunately the same doesn't apply with prison sentences. Scrotes should get longer sentences as the dole isn't a job and it will still be waiting for them when thy get out.

Costs the taxpayer more money to put them up full board at Her Majesty's pleasure than it does to pay them £80/week to sit on the sofa...

[poison]

got done recently for doing 65mph in 50mph area pleaded by post had to send war and peace,income outgoings,savings and inside leg measurement,total fine £204-00 including costs and victim surcharge oh and three points.better to be skint same applies when your out of work dont get nuffin if you have made provision for yourself instead of relying on the state!!!!!!!!!!!!,be signing on for nuffin next month.

[vonhosen]

hora said:

OP seriously 90mph in those conditions. Be honest, you are serious? Why did the Officer even consider stopping you. That doesn't make sense unless you were using all three lanes/cutting bends?

Seriously ?

In those conditions why would apexing be a greater problem than the speed ?

[vonhosen]

hora said:

I'm just trying to figure if it was a slow day for this particular officer. I know as a general rule I stay below 90 but surely if the conditions were good/quite he would have let it slide?

That rather depends on what his tolerance threshold is.
If you exceed limits by 20mph then I think you've got to realistically expect prosecution where caught, irrespective of conditions & apexing isn't illegal in & of itself whilst speeding is.

[AndyAudi]

poison said:

..pleaded by post had to send war and peace,income outgoings,savings and inside leg measurement,....

Scotland may undoubtedly be different, however I did mine by post too.
On reading the forms I noticed the page on financial circumstances was optional. I read sentancing guidlines elsewhere that in the absense of info they would base fines on an income level of around £30k.
I declined to take the option of filling in the form.

97 in 70mph (dual) = £300 & 5 pts

[SS2.]

AndyAudi said:

I read sentancing guidlines elsewhere that in the absense of info they would base fines on an income level of around £30k.

If no reliable income information is provided, the courts are directed to assume a figure of £350 per week (unless there is information available which would suggest a significantly higher or significantly lower weekly income).

[boobles]

I was caught doing 98mph on the motorway a few years back & the copper was great. He asked me why i was going so fast to which i replied "i was keeping up with the traffic, specifically with the Lamborghini that overtook me whilst i was doing 98" he laughed & he offered to show me a picture of a crash scene or points as punishment, i took the picture option & was on my way. I was lucky to have that option.

[SS2.]

musclecarmad said:

hmm, i always thought it'd be a £60 fine then.

It would have been had the OP been in a position to comply with the terms of the Fixed Penalty which had been offered.

But once the matter was reverted to court, it was on the cards that the potential penalties could be significantly higher.

[10 Pence Short]

The fine is to teach you a lesson and deter you from future offending, that's why it's proportionate to your means.

There's no point fining someone earning £200 a week £50 and another person earning £5000 a week £50. Where's the fairness or consistancy in that?

[grumbledoak]

10 Pence Short said:

that's why it's proportionate to your means.

They brainwashed you good and proper!

Given the variety of ways in which people can earn/obtain money it's impossible to envisage a fines system that is even remotely Just. It is more likely that the means testing is simply a way of raising more revenue that a flat system would allow.