A20 Speeding Fines Deemed Unlawful
Discussion
Potentially tens of thousands of motorists received unlawful NIPs and subsequent points/fines/courses through a temporary speed restriction which was inadequately signed.
Local paper link: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/news/ludicro...
MPs waiting for response from Mayor of London Office for how their affected constituents will be compensated. Costs high and above the upfront fines/course fees etc.
Local paper link: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/news/ludicro...
MPs waiting for response from Mayor of London Office for how their affected constituents will be compensated. Costs high and above the upfront fines/course fees etc.
Rafka said:
It s not just the fines. Some people will have had to declare unjustified points to their insurance companies.
What a mess.
There is chap in the article caught 5 times, disqualified, lost his job as a result - when he could drive again his insurance increased to over £3000... What a mess.
Rafka said:
It s not just the fines. Some people will have had to declare unjustified points to their insurance companies.
What a mess.
Exactly, it wasn't the speed reduction per se, it was the application of a few repeater signs with no major sign upon entering the zone and no explanation of temporary speed limit signs, some of the original 50mph limit repeater signs were inadvertantly left up, and the whole order was signed off by an officer with no qualification to do so. One driver triggered the camera 9 times before the first NIP arrived to alert him, crazy!What a mess.
courty said:
Rafka said:
It s not just the fines. Some people will have had to declare unjustified points to their insurance companies.
What a mess.
Exactly, it wasn't the speed reduction per se, it was the application of a few repeater signs with no major sign upon entering the zone and no explanation of temporary speed limit signs, some of the original 50mph limit repeater signs were inadvertantly left up, and the whole order was signed off by an officer with no qualification to do so. One driver triggered the camera 9 times before the first NIP arrived to alert him, crazy!What a mess.
tshow very well. I found out about it from a friend who nearly got caught out by it. Fortunately for me I had alternative routes for the journeys I needed to do.I remember when this happened and both TfL and the Met pushed back really hard on any criticism. Surely both organisations would know something was fishy with the high numbers of NIPs being issued?
What will happen is that those who took them to Court will get a refund and compensation. Everyone else will most probably have to apply for a refund, rather than the Met and TfL contacting everyone who shouldn't have been NIPed/prosecuted.
What will happen is that those who took them to Court will get a refund and compensation. Everyone else will most probably have to apply for a refund, rather than the Met and TfL contacting everyone who shouldn't have been NIPed/prosecuted.
Mike Legerwood said:
It will be interesting to see how they calculate the compensation due for those that have lost their job, had increased insurance premiums, perhaps lost out on attending an SAC for a subsequent speeding conviction, or possibly got a totting up ban, etc etc...
I reckon they’ll just refund any fines and remove the points. I can’t see them paying compensation for increased insurance premiums.ferret50 said:
megaphone said:
Do forget 'they' means us tax payers who will foot any compensation bill.
Surely any costs should be down to the contractor who displayed the wrong signage?t that they incur costs then you can complain about them or vote them out.I've never had a NIP. If you fill in the paperwork stating "yes, it was me, I'll take the fine" do you have a leg to stand on if the speed limit is later deemed unlawful? Or is it a full and final settlement that you can't back away from?
It will be interesting to see how it plays out for those who lost jobs etc...
It will be interesting to see how it plays out for those who lost jobs etc...
vikingaero said:
I remember when this happened and both TfL and the Met pushed back really hard on any criticism. Surely both organisations would know something was fishy with the high numbers of NIPs being issued?
What will happen is that those who took them to Court will get a refund and compensation. Everyone else will most probably have to apply for a refund, rather than the Met and TfL contacting everyone who shouldn't have been NIPed/prosecuted.
TFL have told ITV news that they will resist any appeals as they believe the speed limit reduction was necessary. I guess if you accepted the fines/points then there is no appeal process left. Some people received bans by a magistrate under totting up, so they may be able to appeal? Apparently the Crown Court judgement carries no weight outside of the specific case, so it's not like a test case that can then be blanket applied to anybody else who received a NIP and accepted the fine/points for speeding in the same area during the temporary limit.What will happen is that those who took them to Court will get a refund and compensation. Everyone else will most probably have to apply for a refund, rather than the Met and TfL contacting everyone who shouldn't have been NIPed/prosecuted.
2020vision said:
If lots of drivers claim the speed limit wasn't properly signed, what proportion of drivers getting caught to how many used the road would you say indicated that the speed limit was adequately signed?
1%; 10%; etc....
All things being equal if one section of road is getting way more infringements than another then it's hard to argue that the systems of signage are equally adequate. The issue here though is moot. The appeal, never needed to deal with this as it succeeded based on the order creating it being unlawful, as the person signing it was not authorised to do so. So whatever the sign the speed limit was still 70. 1%; 10%; etc....
2020vision said:
If lots of drivers claim the speed limit wasn't properly signed, what proportion of drivers getting caught to how many used the road would you say indicated that the speed limit was adequately signed?
1%; 10%; etc....
To do that, first you would need to eliminate the drivers whose speed was limited by traffic and/or weather conditions. Then you would need to establish the number of drivers who were driving at what they believed to be the speed limit. Any drive on a British DC or motorway will reveal that a lot of people cruise at an indicated 10 below the limit. They wouldn't have been caught, but you can't infer the limit was correctly applied from that.1%; 10%; etc....
You could make some estimates about the above, but I'm not sure it would stand up to scrutiny where someone is keen to argue against it. So you need to assess if the limit was correctly applied, and we can now say it was not. We have rules for a reason.
Speed Matters | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff