Speed Awareness Course Question

[Gnevans]

I received a notice with an option to do a course in April 2019 which I completed in July 2019 as it was postponed from June.

I have requested another course but been refused as there is not a 3 year gap in speed awareness courses.

There is a three year gap in the PCNs.

Can I appeal this is it simply down to the course dates?

[martinbiz]

Gnevans said:

I received a notice with an option to do a course in April 2019 which I completed in July 2019 as it was postponed from June.

I have requested another course but been refused as there is not a 3 year gap in speed awareness courses.

There is a three year gap in the PCNs.

Can I appeal this is it simply down to the course dates?

It will be from the date of the offence that you took the course for, if this new offence date is 3 years from that then you should be offered another course

[Gnevans]

Thank you that’s what I thought/hoped. I’ll call them on Monday. Have a good weekend and thank you for the prompt reply.

[.:ian:.]

Tell them you want your money back for the first one as it didn't work

[Gnevans]

It worked for three years. Good enough for me. I’m just out of warranty

[BertBert]

martinbiz said:

It will be from the date of the offence that you took the course for, if this new offence date is 3 years from that then you should be offered another course

I don't think that is correct. I'm not certain, but most Google references talk about 3 years from attendance of the last course, not the offence dates. The offence dates are obviously used for other things such as totting

[Canon_Fodder]

.:ian:. said:

Tell them you want your money back for the first one as it didn't work

[Pica-Pica]

.:ian:. said:

Tell them you want your money back for the first one as it didn't work

Or … Tell them you want to pay double, as you didn’t listen.

[Gnevans]

I knew this would turn into Mumsnet.

[Dog Star]

Gnevans said:

I knew this would turn into Mumsnet.

Yep. I was hoping for a “suck it up” comment, but was sadly disappointed- however there’s one in General Gassing - some guy with a knackered Kia EV battery has been told to “suck it up” so that’s my hit for the morning

[martinbiz]

BertBert said:

martinbiz said:

It will be from the date of the offence that you took the course for, if this new offence date is 3 years from that then you should be offered another course

I don't think that is correct. I'm not certain, but most Google references talk about 3 years from attendance of the last course, not the offence dates. The offence dates are obviously used for other things such as totting

It definitely is, probably badly worded or just plain wrong like a lot of rubbish that Google picks up. For obvious reasons when you think about it. If someone attends a course for the first offence say 5 months after the offence they would be unfairly disadvantaged for a second offer to someone who managed to get the first one within a couple of weeks

[QJumper]

martinbiz said:

It definitely is, probably badly worded or just plain wrong like a lot of rubbish that Google picks up. For obvious reasons when you think about it. If someone attends a course for the first offence say 5 months after the offence they would be unfairly disadvantaged for a second offer to someone who managed to get the first one within a couple of weeks

I'm not sure the relevant authoritiies are overly concerned about unfairly disadvantaging someone who broke the speed limit twice.

That said, it's just a case of better diary management, and planning your speeding offences more carefully

[mgtony]

Tell them to offer you a course and you'll book it for August!

[Gnevans]

It’s ok having seen the pictures my wife has remembered it was her. Or my mother in law I’m not sure yet.

[BertBert]

martinbiz said:

It definitely is, probably badly worded or just plain wrong like a lot of rubbish that Google picks up. For obvious reasons when you think about it. If someone attends a course for the first offence say 5 months after the offence they would be unfairly disadvantaged for a second offer to someone who managed to get the first one within a couple of weeks

It's what many official websites say on the matter. Just out of interest do you know where is it defined? I would have thought it down to local decisions by the police areas rather than encapsulated in statute.

[Durzel]

Gnevans said:

I knew this would turn into Mumsnet.

I thought your “warranty” reply was funny, but this is such a played out retort. Is there any evidence to suggest that women or Mums are less likely to get done for minor speeding infractions?

[Pica-Pica]

BertBert said:

It's what many official websites say on the matter. Just out of interest do you know where is it defined? I would have thought it down to local decisions by the police areas rather than encapsulated in statute.

Indeed. It could be argued that the three years is reckoned from the course date, as that is the period from when the supposed behaviour-modifying intervention should be in effect.

[hepy]

Dog Star said:

Gnevans said:

I knew this would turn into Mumsnet.

Yep. I was hoping for a “suck it up” comment, but was sadly disappointed- however there’s one in General Gassing - some guy with a knackered Kia EV battery has been told to “suck it up” so that’s my hit for the morning

That was me being told to 'suck it up' - there are some rough, tough people on PH. This thread is much friendlier and funnier!

Anyway - lamp post no repeater = 30. Do they teach that on all speed awareness courses?

[deckster]

hepy said:

That was me being told to 'suck it up' - there are some rough, tough people on PH.

There really aren't. There are some shouty idiots, but by definition anybody arguing on an internet form is neither rough nor tough.

[martinbiz]

BertBert said:

martinbiz said:

It definitely is, probably badly worded or just plain wrong like a lot of rubbish that Google picks up. For obvious reasons when you think about it. If someone attends a course for the first offence say 5 months after the offence they would be unfairly disadvantaged for a second offer to someone who managed to get the first one within a couple of weeks

It's what many official websites say on the matter. Just out of interest do you know where is it defined? I would have thought it down to local decisions by the police areas rather than encapsulated in statute.

Very hard to find anything on an official website presumably because it's an offer that does not have to given as such.
But this is from a well known motoring lawyer, rather than a random website full of incorrect B*ll*x info

"When does the Date Start for the 3 Year Rule?"
Once a person attends a course they cannot attend that specific course again within three years from the date of the original offence.