Speeding Fines - TVP not following up with the perp (wife!)

[Fiisch]

Both our cars are registered in my name, but my wife is primary user of one and occasional user of the other.

In the past 4 years, she's carelessly triggered 4 separate mobile speed cameras, three of which were in TVP region. The fourth (Worcestershire), was followed up and points issued/fine paid accordingly. They're all what I'd call careless rather than reckless Eric speeding (e.g.: failing to slow from a 50 to a 40 in time, 68mph on a motorway when the variable speed limits were 60mph etc.).

For all the TVP offences, the police have written to me requesting driver details and I've responded by letter (non-recorded delivery delivery) immediately with her details, and on each occasion they've failed to follow up. The first two were during Covid/lockdown silly season, so I put it down to overstretched public services and admin errors, but am now a little worried in case the letter has got lost in the post or similar, and I'm subsequently prosecuted for failing to provide driver info (MW90 or whatever it is).

For the latest offence, I sent the letter off over 3 weeks ago and still no reply. What would you do? Should I follow up with TVP, or bury my head and hope it goes away?

FWIW I've no idea why I'd be eligible for a tug but my wife wouldn't - she's not a Diplomat, has 3 points versus my clean history, is a UK-born resident etc.

[martinbiz]

Fiisch said:

Both our cars are registered in my name, but my wife is primary user of one and occasional user of the other.

In the past 4 years, she's carelessly triggered 4 separate mobile speed cameras, three of which were in TVP region. The fourth (Worcestershire), was followed up and points issued/fine paid accordingly. They're all what I'd call careless rather than reckless Eric speeding (e.g.: failing to slow from a 50 to a 40 in time, 68mph on a motorway when the variable speed limits were 60mph etc.).

For all the TVP offences, the police have written to me requesting driver details and I've responded by letter (non-recorded delivery delivery) immediately with her details, and on each occasion they've failed to follow up. The first two were during Covid/lockdown silly season, so I put it down to overstretched public services and admin errors, but am now a little worried in case the letter has got lost in the post or similar, and I'm subsequently prosecuted for failing to provide driver info (MW90 or whatever it is).

For the latest offence, I sent the letter off over 3 weeks ago and still no reply. What would you do? Should I follow up with TVP, or bury my head and hope it goes away?


FWIW I've no idea why I'd be eligible for a tug but my wife wouldn't - she's not a Diplomat, has 3 points versus my clean history, is a UK-born resident etc.

3 weeks is not long. if the other 2 were during lockdown it would seem you may have got away with them. Do licence checks to make sure she / you haven't been convicted in absence and points / disqualifications added

Have you been at the same address during the period?

And always use signed for.

Edited by martinbiz on Monday 11th March 22:42

[Crudeoink]

Maybe your wifes bit on the side works at TVP

[QuickQuack]

Crudeoink said:

Maybe your wifes bit on the side works at TVP

[Beetnik]

Crudeoink said:

Maybe your wifes bit on the side works at TVP

post of the day

[Dave Finney]

It's the mobile speed cameras operated by TVP that I evaluated.

There was a 19% increase in fatal and serious collisions at their sites after they started operating.
It's not just being fined you need to be careful of, you may actually be more likely to be killed or seriously injured!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss

[NFT]

Dave Finney said:

It's the mobile speed cameras operated by TVP that I evaluated.

There was a 19% increase in fatal and serious collisions at their sites after they started operating.
It's not just being fined you need to be careful of, you may actually be more likely to be killed or seriously injured!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss

indeed, unsure if course/endorsement stats are available to match up but, is there any easy way to see if the area wide collusions increased on par with enforcement action, like numbers of course enrolments/licence endorsements? Might be interesting.

[Dave Finney]

NFT said:

indeed, unsure if course/endorsement stats are available to match up but, is there any easy way to see if the area wide collusions increased on par with enforcement action, like numbers of course enrolments/licence endorsements? Might be interesting.

The short answer is no, there are too many other factors.
In the early days, the DfT thought that cameras would have area wide benefits (not just at the sites).
They gathered the data to try to prove it but discovered there were no identifiable area wide benefits.

Worse than that, the 1st decade of speed cameras saw road safety improvements decline significantly,
but corrolation is not causation and it isn't clear whether the cameras contributed to that damage.

Certainly, the effect of cameras should be greatest where they are situated and,
if they are leading to more death and serious injury at those locations,
it would seem very unlikely that their effect is somehow the opposite elsewhere.

[cashmax]

If you posted the letters first class and would be willing to say that under oath in court, then you don't have anything to worry about. The Police use the same method to post NIPs and are happy to assume it's "delivered" by doing so. The court cannot accept that Royal Mail is acceptable for the police but not the public. It has be argued many, many times in court.

[martinbiz]

cashmax said:

If you posted the letters first class and would be willing to say that under oath in court, then you don't have anything to worry about. The Police use the same method to post NIPs and are happy to assume it's "delivered" by doing so. The court cannot accept that Royal Mail is acceptable for the police but not the public. It has be argued many, many times in court.

Wrong and also 3 years ago so any court process has long since happened

[cashmax]

martinbiz said:

cashmax said:

If you posted the letters first class and would be willing to say that under oath in court, then you don't have anything to worry about. The Police use the same method to post NIPs and are happy to assume it's "delivered" by doing so. The court cannot accept that Royal Mail is acceptable for the police but not the public. It has be argued many, many times in court.

Wrong and also 3 years ago so any court process has long since happened

If any court process has long since happened then the OP is in the clear. As for it being wrong, perhaps you could expand on that, since it was my understanding that NIPs are still sent using 1st class post?

[martinbiz]

cashmax said:

martinbiz said:

cashmax said:

If you posted the letters first class and would be willing to say that under oath in court, then you don't have anything to worry about. The Police use the same method to post NIPs and are happy to assume it's "delivered" by doing so. The court cannot accept that Royal Mail is acceptable for the police but not the public. It has be argued many, many times in court.

Wrong and also 3 years ago so any court process has long since happened

If any court process has long since happened then the OP is in the clear. As for it being wrong, perhaps you could expand on that, since it was my understanding that NIPs are still sent using 1st class post?

Read my first post, they may well have been convicted in absence, Making representations along the lines of " I sent it back first class post guv so tough sh*t prove me wrong" is less than vanishingly unlikely to get a result. Many may have tried it and the same amount will have failed

Edit to say: do you not think that if your method has such a good chance of success, that everyone who ever received a NIP would be doing the same thing

Edited by martinbiz on Wednesday 13th March 11:43

[agtlaw]

martinbiz said:

Read my first post, they may well have been convicted in absence, Making representations along the lines of " I sent it back first class post guv so tough sh*t prove me wrong" is less than vanishingly unlikely to get a result. Many may have tried it and the same amount will have failed

Edit to say: do you not think that if your method has such a good chance of success, that everyone who ever received a NIP would be doing the same thing

Edited by martinbiz on Wednesday 13th March 11:43

The burden of proof is on the defendant in the circumstances described. Civil standard applies, of course. Unlikely but not impossible in my experience. Largely depends on the credibility of D.

[cashmax]

martinbiz said:

cashmax said:

martinbiz said:

cashmax said:

If you posted the letters first class and would be willing to say that under oath in court, then you don't have anything to worry about. The Police use the same method to post NIPs and are happy to assume it's "delivered" by doing so. The court cannot accept that Royal Mail is acceptable for the police but not the public. It has be argued many, many times in court.

Wrong and also 3 years ago so any court process has long since happened

If any court process has long since happened then the OP is in the clear. As for it being wrong, perhaps you could expand on that, since it was my understanding that NIPs are still sent using 1st class post?

Read my first post, they may well have been convicted in absence, Making representations along the lines of " I sent it back first class post guv so tough sh*t prove me wrong" is less than vanishingly unlikely to get a result. Many may have tried it and the same amount will have failed

I'm sorry, but that's simply not right.

Are you suggesting that the police have sent no comms, moved to court and issued penalties under section 172, multiple times whilst the OP has received no documentation from the court or from the police?

Even if this was the case, S172 carries 6 points, so by the second offence he would be liable to be banned under totting up and they would not disqualify him without giving him the option to attend court.

If we are just talking about the last offence - it's been 3 weeks only, the OP has up to 28 days to respond before the police will consider prosecution under S172, so how on earth will he have been convicted in his absence? This is especially the case since they will often wait longer before bringing a prosecution because holidays/travel etc and they will also extend this time if reasonable grounds are given.

Ontop of all that, someone who sent back the NIP with the driver details in good faith, hears nothing back from the police or the court and later finds out that they have been convicted of S172 in their absence would absolutely have grounds to appeal.

Of course the OP can check his license status with the DVLA online and this will no doubt show that he has not been prosecuted in his absence.

Finally regarding the defence - I'm not sure why you think that it's not valid, it absolutely is valid in the same way as when the NIP was posted it was deemed to be served, when the OP posted it back, he was deemed to have responded. This has been tested many times and is a valid defence if the OP did indeed post it back as he states.

[cashmax]

martinbiz said:

Edit to say: do you not think that if your method has such a good chance of success, that everyone who ever received a NIP would be doing the same thing

Edited by martinbiz on Wednesday 13th March 11:43

Why? What would it achieve?

[martinbiz]

cashmax said:

I'm sorry, but that's simply not right.

Are you suggesting that the police have sent no comms, moved to court and issued penalties under section 172, multiple times whilst the OP has received no documentation from the court or from the police?

Even if this was the case, S172 carries 6 points, so by the second offence he would be liable to be banned under totting up and they would not disqualify him without giving him the option to attend court.

If we are just talking about the last offence - it's been 3 weeks only, the OP has up to 28 days to respond before the police will consider prosecution under S172, so how on earth will he have been convicted in his absence? This is especially the case since they will often wait longer before bringing a prosecution because holidays/travel etc and they will also extend this time if reasonable grounds are given.

Ontop of all that, someone who sent back the NIP with the driver details in good faith, hears nothing back from the police or the court and later finds out that they have been convicted of S172 in their absence would absolutely have grounds to appeal.

Of course the OP can check his license status with the DVLA online and this will no doubt show that he has not been prosecuted in his absence.

Finally regarding the defence - I'm not sure why you think that it's not valid, it absolutely is valid in the same way as when the NIP was posted it was deemed to be served, when the OP posted it back, he was deemed to have responded. This has been tested many times and is a valid defence if the OP did indeed post it back as he states.

Do you not think that there is a distinct possibility of them not having the correct address for the OP?

Instead of skip reading, read back through the thread slowly and carefully. No one is mentioning the latest NIP other than to say there is plenty of time left for them to reply, it is about the 2 old ones.

Plenty of people are convicted and some even disqualified in absence for a whole host of reasons and for some the first time they realise is when doing a licence check for something totally unconnected, whether they can appeal it would depend the individual circumstances and timescales and if the non communication is the defendants fault then they are likely to fail.

The rest of your post is just conjecture and guesswork

Read AGT's post above quoting mine

[cashmax]

martinbiz said:

Do you not think that there is a distinct possibility of them not having the correct address for the OP?

They have already written to him at his "correct address" no less than 4 times?

[martinbiz]

cashmax said:

They have already written to him at his "correct address" no less than 4 times?

You seem to want to be deliberately obtuse, or just misunderstanding the system

At the point of receiving the 2 old NIPs in question he obviously WOULD have been at the RK address, a few weeks down the line maybe he COULD not have been at the RK address and maybe more recently he COULD have realised he hadn't updated the RK details and then did so, hence receiving the recent NIP ok. As said earlier without any input from the OP it's guesswork, so let's not guess at the facts. Assuming the OP's account to be correct then I would think an address issue is the most likely scenario