35 in a 30 but can’t identify the driver
Discussion
Hi all
Would appreciate your views on what happens next:-
Received a Scamera notice through the door in April – 35 in a 30 on the A5 just outside Llangollen.
Sent the Notice back with a correction in the address (I’d just moved and the DVLA hadn’t processed my cars in good time) and a declaration that I was unable to recall who the driver was.
I informed them that the driver could indeed have been me, but equally could have been my girlfriend – we both drove the car in the town within an hour period.
A fortnight later I again received another identical notice, again with the incorrect address. My reply to this was identical – told them the new address and repeated my inability to identify the driver.
A week later, a third, identical notice arrives, again wrong address. Filled out as before and then went on holiday for 3 weeks to New Zealand.
Got back to a letter and a copy of the photograph which stated that they are unable to identify the driver (neither can I as it’s from the rear and the driver cannot be seen). The letter again asks for me to provide the driver details and is again sent to the wrong address. The letter finished by saying if I failed to reply in seven days, then it would go to court. The letter was dated the day I left for New Zealand.
So on my return I rang the call centre who simply said that I “will have to wait for the court summons as we have no power to do anything”
The one point that amazed me was this – my alleged crime isn’t speeding – it’s my inability to provide information which I genuinely cannot do.
In order to prevent my court appearance – I have to confess to something I do not and cannot know.
Waaaahh
Would appreciate your views on what happens next:-
Received a Scamera notice through the door in April – 35 in a 30 on the A5 just outside Llangollen.
Sent the Notice back with a correction in the address (I’d just moved and the DVLA hadn’t processed my cars in good time) and a declaration that I was unable to recall who the driver was.
I informed them that the driver could indeed have been me, but equally could have been my girlfriend – we both drove the car in the town within an hour period.
A fortnight later I again received another identical notice, again with the incorrect address. My reply to this was identical – told them the new address and repeated my inability to identify the driver.
A week later, a third, identical notice arrives, again wrong address. Filled out as before and then went on holiday for 3 weeks to New Zealand.
Got back to a letter and a copy of the photograph which stated that they are unable to identify the driver (neither can I as it’s from the rear and the driver cannot be seen). The letter again asks for me to provide the driver details and is again sent to the wrong address. The letter finished by saying if I failed to reply in seven days, then it would go to court. The letter was dated the day I left for New Zealand.
So on my return I rang the call centre who simply said that I “will have to wait for the court summons as we have no power to do anything”
The one point that amazed me was this – my alleged crime isn’t speeding – it’s my inability to provide information which I genuinely cannot do.
In order to prevent my court appearance – I have to confess to something I do not and cannot know.
Waaaahh
Ah, welcome to Blair's Tough On Crime.. See, you thought he meant muggers, rapists and the like, but he meant a far worse person.. The Motorist....
I don't have experience of this but I would write to the court myself and explain the situation and ask them what you are expected to do. I would also clearly state that you cannot ID the driver from the Photograph and have no idea who was driving, do they ask that you take points for an offence you may not have committed? Hopefully someone who knows more will pop along and tell you the best approach.. Oh, and have you tried pepipoo?
I don't have experience of this but I would write to the court myself and explain the situation and ask them what you are expected to do. I would also clearly state that you cannot ID the driver from the Photograph and have no idea who was driving, do they ask that you take points for an offence you may not have committed? Hopefully someone who knows more will pop along and tell you the best approach.. Oh, and have you tried pepipoo?
Write back stating that both yourself and the GF ( giving names and addresses) drove the car on that day and that stretch of road and in naming the possible drivers, you as RK have discharged your obligation under the RTA 1988 s172a) as ammended. You can agree that the evidence that thy have sent you is inconclusive and should they be able to send you any further evidence, you will be only too pleased to help them with their enquiries.
And check out www.pepipoo.com
And check out www.pepipoo.com
dodgyviper said:
Hi all
Would appreciate your views on what happens next:-
Received a Scamera notice through the door in April – 35 in a 30 on the A5 just outside Llangollen.
Sent the Notice back with a correction in the address (I’d just moved and the DVLA hadn’t processed my cars in good time) and a declaration that I was unable to recall who the driver was.
I informed them that the driver could indeed have been me, but equally could have been my girlfriend – we both drove the car in the town within an hour period.
A fortnight later I again received another identical notice, again with the incorrect address. My reply to this was identical – told them the new address and repeated my inability to identify the driver.
A week later, a third, identical notice arrives, again wrong address. Filled out as before and then went on holiday for 3 weeks to New Zealand.
Got back to a letter and a copy of the photograph which stated that they are unable to identify the driver (neither can I as it’s from the rear and the driver cannot be seen). The letter again asks for me to provide the driver details and is again sent to the wrong address. The letter finished by saying if I failed to reply in seven days, then it would go to court. The letter was dated the day I left for New Zealand.
So on my return I rang the call centre who simply said that I “will have to wait for the court summons as we have no power to do anything”
The one point that amazed me was this – my alleged crime isn’t speeding – it’s my inability to provide information which I genuinely cannot do.
In order to prevent my court appearance – I have to confess to something I do not and cannot know.
Waaaahh
Would appreciate your views on what happens next:-
Received a Scamera notice through the door in April – 35 in a 30 on the A5 just outside Llangollen.
Sent the Notice back with a correction in the address (I’d just moved and the DVLA hadn’t processed my cars in good time) and a declaration that I was unable to recall who the driver was.
I informed them that the driver could indeed have been me, but equally could have been my girlfriend – we both drove the car in the town within an hour period.
A fortnight later I again received another identical notice, again with the incorrect address. My reply to this was identical – told them the new address and repeated my inability to identify the driver.
A week later, a third, identical notice arrives, again wrong address. Filled out as before and then went on holiday for 3 weeks to New Zealand.
Got back to a letter and a copy of the photograph which stated that they are unable to identify the driver (neither can I as it’s from the rear and the driver cannot be seen). The letter again asks for me to provide the driver details and is again sent to the wrong address. The letter finished by saying if I failed to reply in seven days, then it would go to court. The letter was dated the day I left for New Zealand.
So on my return I rang the call centre who simply said that I “will have to wait for the court summons as we have no power to do anything”
The one point that amazed me was this – my alleged crime isn’t speeding – it’s my inability to provide information which I genuinely cannot do.
In order to prevent my court appearance – I have to confess to something I do not and cannot know.
Waaaahh
What you can do now is:
Go to court and defend yourself. Explain the situation exactly as you have done. However, if you turn up at court, I doubt very much that the CPS will give it much effort as if dont confess your supposed guilt straight away they have no chance to prove anything to the court.
Hire a reasonably decent specialist solicitor. Pay them £500 and relax. They will win the case as above, as the CPS could not even prove or disprove that Santa Claus of 1, North Pole was driving.
Plead guilty when the court papers come through and pay £60 tax and 3 points for your licence and insurance.
Obviously the last one is what they want you to do, as to the other two it depends on how much effort, money and fight you have in you. Good luck!
justinp1 said:
Go to court and defend yourself. Explain the situation exactly as you have done. However, if you turn up at court, I doubt very much that the CPS will give it much effort as if dont confess your supposed guilt straight away they have no chance to prove anything to the court.
Hire a reasonably decent specialist solicitor. Pay them £500 and relax. They will win the case as above, as the CPS could not even prove or disprove that Santa Claus of 1, North Pole was driving.
This is the defence the Hamiltons famously used and got off (on appeal, I think). However the owner is suppossed to know who is driving and I wouldn't fancy my chances in a Welsh court over this - you're likely to get a bigger fine for trying to be a smartarse.
justinp1 said:
Hire a reasonably decent specialist solicitor. Pay them £500 and relax. They will win the case as above, as the CPS could not even prove or disprove that Santa Claus of 1, North Pole was driving.
It is highly unlikely that a summons would be served for the alleged speeding offence (driver identity not known) and, as such, it would be irrelevant who was driving. The summons would reflect the fact that the RK has been unable to provide driver details at the time of an alleged offence following a request made under s.172 RTA 1988. justinp1 said:
Plead guilty when the court papers come through and pay £60 tax and 3 points for your licence and insurance.
Likely to be 3 points and £250-£350 fine plus costs upon conviction for failure to furnish 
s.172 RTA 1998 s/s.4 exists to protect genuinely innocent motorists in cases such as this from being prosecuted (well, that was the intention of the legislation anyway..)
s.172 RTA 1988 said:
(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.
If summonsed for failing to furnish, the OP would need to demonstrate that he had exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to determine the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged offence. Stating simply 'I don't know' falls way short of this and is unlikely to cut it with the Mags.
Reasonable diligence would include, at the very least, checking credit card bills for fuel or food stops, mobile phone records, diaries, requesting photo(s) from the scammers etc etc. Evidence of the effort expended should be demonstrated by the presentation of a clear and ordered paper trail.
deva link said:
However the owner is suppossed to know who is driving and I wouldn't fancy my chances in a Welsh court over this - you're likely to get a bigger fine for trying to be a smartarse.
A private individual is under no statutory obligation to keep records of the identity of the driver at any time. The rules for companies or body corporates are more stringent. Agree on the smartarse point. For any defendant in an unsure of driver defence, credibility is paramount. If a defendant tries every trick in the book and appears to be trying to wriggle out of conviction at all costs, then the credibility would be shot and a guilty verdict is probable.
SS2. said:
justinp1 said:
Hire a reasonably decent specialist solicitor. Pay them £500 and relax. They will win the case as above, as the CPS could not even prove or disprove that Santa Claus of 1, North Pole was driving.
It is highly unlikely that a summons would be served for the alleged speeding offence (driver identity not known) and, as such, it would be irrelevant who was driving. The summons would reflect the fact that the RK has been unable to provide driver details at the time of an alleged offence following a request made under s.172 RTA 1988. justinp1 said:
Plead guilty when the court papers come through and pay £60 tax and 3 points for your licence and insurance.
Likely to be 3 points and £250-£350 fine plus costs upon conviction for failure to furnish s.172 RTA 1998 s/s.4 exists to protect genuinely innocent motorists in cases such as this from being prosecuted (well, that was the intention of the legislation anyway..)
s.172 RTA 1988 said:
(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.
If summonsed for failing to furnish, the OP would need to demonstrate that he had exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to determine the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged offence. Stating simply 'I don't know' falls way short of this and is unlikely to cut it with the Mags.
Reasonable diligence would include, at the very least, checking credit card bills for fuel or food stops, mobile phone records, diaries, requesting photo(s) from the scammers etc etc. Evidence of the effort expended should be demonstrated by the presentation of a clear and ordered paper trail.
deva link said:
However the owner is suppossed to know who is driving and I wouldn't fancy my chances in a Welsh court over this - you're likely to get a bigger fine for trying to be a smartarse.
A private individual is under no statutory obligation to keep records of the identity of the driver at any time. The rules for companies or body corporates are more stringent. Agree on the smartarse point. For any defendant in an unsure of driver defence, credibility is paramount. If a defendant tries every trick in the book and appears to be trying to wriggle out of conviction at all costs, then the credibility would be shot and a guilty verdict is probable.
You are of course exactly right, I misread the poster and now realise that the summons are not for the speeding offence in his name, but failure to furnish as you have stated.
Would you reckon going to court, showing proof of the correspondance about the change of address and asking for the photo etc a good way forward?
My hunch is that the poster has acted more than reasonably in working with 'the authorities' in this case, and such a conviction would merely show that whilst 'they' can administrate very poorly and you can send back and forth the same information, if you happen to go on holiday whilst this farce is continuing you have committed an offence.
deva link said:
justinp1 said:
Go to court and defend yourself. Explain the situation exactly as you have done. However, if you turn up at court, I doubt very much that the CPS will give it much effort as if dont confess your supposed guilt straight away they have no chance to prove anything to the court.
Hire a reasonably decent specialist solicitor. Pay them £500 and relax. They will win the case as above, as the CPS could not even prove or disprove that Santa Claus of 1, North Pole was driving.
This is the defence the Hamiltons famously used and got off (on appeal, I think). However the owner is suppossed to know who is driving and I wouldn't fancy my chances in a Welsh court over this - you're likely to get a bigger fine for trying to be a smartarse.
daniboy said:
they are ba*&^rds all this for going 5mph over the limit makes me 
I agree.
Would be also nice to see the outcome of a case like this fought properly with this margin of error. At 35 it makes me think that they may have been zapping everything that moved - and that would have been shown in the video - IF they had the guts to show it.
justinp1 said:
daniboy said:
they are ba*&^rds all this for going 5mph over the limit makes me
I agree.
Would be also nice to see the outcome of a case like this fought properly with this margin of error. At 35 it makes me think that they may have been zapping everything that moved - and that would have been shown in the video - IF they had the guts to show it.
IMO the OP has been dilligent and has named the two possible individuals who could have been driving. It's not his fault the scammers have insufficient evidence to prosecute.
puggit said:
deva link said:
justinp1 said:
Go to court and defend yourself. Explain the situation exactly as you have done. However, if you turn up at court, I doubt very much that the CPS will give it much effort as if dont confess your supposed guilt straight away they have no chance to prove anything to the court.
Hire a reasonably decent specialist solicitor. Pay them £500 and relax. They will win the case as above, as the CPS could not even prove or disprove that Santa Claus of 1, North Pole was driving.
This is the defence the Hamiltons famously used and got off (on appeal, I think). However the owner is suppossed to know who is driving and I wouldn't fancy my chances in a Welsh court over this - you're likely to get a bigger fine for trying to be a smartarse.
I didn't say there was!
justinp1 said:
SS2. said:
justinp1 said:
Hire a reasonably decent specialist solicitor. Pay them £500 and relax. They will win the case as above, as the CPS could not even prove or disprove that Santa Claus of 1, North Pole was driving.
It is highly unlikely that a summons would be served for the alleged speeding offence (driver identity not known) and, as such, it would be irrelevant who was driving. The summons would reflect the fact that the RK has been unable to provide driver details at the time of an alleged offence following a request made under s.172 RTA 1988. justinp1 said:
Plead guilty when the court papers come through and pay £60 tax and 3 points for your licence and insurance.
Likely to be 3 points and £250-£350 fine plus costs upon conviction for failure to furnish s.172 RTA 1998 s/s.4 exists to protect genuinely innocent motorists in cases such as this from being prosecuted (well, that was the intention of the legislation anyway..)
s.172 RTA 1988 said:
(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.
If summonsed for failing to furnish, the OP would need to demonstrate that he had exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to determine the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged offence. Stating simply 'I don't know' falls way short of this and is unlikely to cut it with the Mags.
Reasonable diligence would include, at the very least, checking credit card bills for fuel or food stops, mobile phone records, diaries, requesting photo(s) from the scammers etc etc. Evidence of the effort expended should be demonstrated by the presentation of a clear and ordered paper trail.
deva link said:
However the owner is suppossed to know who is driving and I wouldn't fancy my chances in a Welsh court over this - you're likely to get a bigger fine for trying to be a smartarse.
A private individual is under no statutory obligation to keep records of the identity of the driver at any time. The rules for companies or body corporates are more stringent. Agree on the smartarse point. For any defendant in an unsure of driver defence, credibility is paramount. If a defendant tries every trick in the book and appears to be trying to wriggle out of conviction at all costs, then the credibility would be shot and a guilty verdict is probable.
You are of course exactly right, I misread the poster and now realise that the summons are not for the speeding offence in his name, but failure to furnish as you have stated.
Would you reckon going to court, showing proof of the correspondance about the change of address and asking for the photo etc a good way forward?
My hunch is that the poster has acted more than reasonably in working with 'the authorities' in this case, and such a conviction would merely show that whilst 'they' can administrate very poorly and you can send back and forth the same information, if you happen to go on holiday whilst this farce is continuing you have committed an offence.
Totally agreed, particularly if the accused can show in his paper trail that at some point he didn't just say I don't know but provided names addresses etc of all the people who could have driven the vehicle and has a record of sending that information, above together with proof of receipt by scamps better still imho. CPS should then drop like a hot potato.
justinp1 said:
Would you reckon going to court, showing proof of the correspondance about the change of address and asking for the photo etc a good way forward?
Yes. IMO, no one should be forced to 'fess up to a 'crime' they are not 100% certain they committed. I'm sure that the bully boy, coercive and downright threatening stance of the scammers does force people into folding - largely because they are unaware of the protective legislation that exists.. The OP needs to ensure that his paper trail is shown to pre-date any summons. The Mags will not believe that he exercised reasonable diligence if the checks were made AFTER a summons had been served.
For instance, the OP should probably write to the scammers (as soon as possible) and state clearly the steps he has taken. In the letter, he should ask the scammers for any further suggestions they may have. Again, openness and an apparent willingness to co-operate adds to the OP's credibility.
Bear in mind the Mags see dozens of FTF cases where some scummy chav in a shell suit stands up in court and grunts 'dunno who was driving'. These people will almost certainly be convicted. But a smartly dressed defendant, who is polite and organised and is seen to have assisted the SCP as much as possible should not be convicted of this offence..
justinp1 said:
My hunch is that the poster has acted more than reasonably in working with 'the authorities' in this case, and such a conviction would merely show that whilst 'they' can administrate very poorly and you can send back and forth the same information, if you happen to go on holiday whilst this farce is continuing you have committed an offence.
The Magistrates should recognise the fact that the OP was absent from the UK for a period of several weeks and, if the OP has maintained his credibility, then allowances should be made for a lack of correspondence during this time. My 'hunch' is that the OP needs to start putting together his paper trail ASAP - and start by writing a letter to the SCP (before any summons arrives).
All IMHO, as always...
Edited by SS2. on Tuesday 18th July 10:30
SS2. said:
Bear in mind the Mags see dozens of FTF cases where some scummy chav in a shell suit stands up in court and grunts 'dunno who was driving'. These people will almost certainly be convicted. But a smartly dressed defendant, who is polite and organised and is seen to have assisted the SCP as much as possible should not be convicted of this offence..
What planet are you from?
The chav would get told not be naughty and be given a lollipop.
The smartly dressed defendant would be fined several hundred pounds.
The chav will laugh at him afterwards.
Word of warning re "smartly dressed".
I went to the Magistrate Court in Cornwall suited and booted (standard daily attire) and was told by the usher "that monkey suit won't do you any favours mate" as I was taken into the Court!
Granted, I might look a little thugish with grade one haircut but there was no bling or burberry anywhere to be seen!
I went to the Magistrate Court in Cornwall suited and booted (standard daily attire) and was told by the usher "that monkey suit won't do you any favours mate" as I was taken into the Court!
Granted, I might look a little thugish with grade one haircut but there was no bling or burberry anywhere to be seen!
Stubby Pete said:
Word of warning re "smartly dressed".
I went to the Magistrate Court in Cornwall suited and booted (standard daily attire) and was told by the usher "that monkey suit won't do you any favours mate" as I was taken into the Court!
Granted, I might look a little thugish with grade one haircut but there was no bling or burberry anywhere to be seen!
I went to the Magistrate Court in Cornwall suited and booted (standard daily attire) and was told by the usher "that monkey suit won't do you any favours mate" as I was taken into the Court!
Granted, I might look a little thugish with grade one haircut but there was no bling or burberry anywhere to be seen!
That smacks of the court (represented by the usher) finding you guilty before you've even appeared before the drooling airheads on the bench!
cmsapms said:
Stubby Pete said:
Word of warning re "smartly dressed".
I went to the Magistrate Court in Cornwall suited and booted (standard daily attire) and was told by the usher "that monkey suit won't do you any favours mate" as I was taken into the Court!
Granted, I might look a little thugish with grade one haircut but there was no bling or burberry anywhere to be seen!
I went to the Magistrate Court in Cornwall suited and booted (standard daily attire) and was told by the usher "that monkey suit won't do you any favours mate" as I was taken into the Court!
Granted, I might look a little thugish with grade one haircut but there was no bling or burberry anywhere to be seen!
That smacks of the court (represented by the usher) finding you guilty before you've even appeared before the drooling airheads on the bench!
I must agree with that. I found the clerks/ushers to be either seemingly on the payroll of the CPS or extremely helpful.
I must say that when I defended myself at Wrexham Mags one of the clerks there spent almost an hour on th phone to me helping me prepare my case with regard to formalities and what so expect ect. When I arrived at court another clerk spent a similar time taking me aside, explained the pros and cons of my plea etc and conducted the case in a very fair and forthright way.
At the appeal at Chester Crown court in the presence of myself and my barrister the clerk thought nothing of sharing a wink a laugh and a private pre trial conversation *in welsh* to the CPS barrister.... Go figure. Oh yes, I lost.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff