Blank fixed penalty notice

[911F]

Anyone have any experience with this?

I was pulled over for looking down in traffic. I contested and stated I wasn't looking at my phone and invited them to check my phone which was on the seat. They "believed I was" and after a lot of toing and froing, I was given a FPN but told them I would dispute it. When I got home, I looked at it, and it's blank.

The officer also asked me after she handed me the pink slip if she could check it to make sure she'd signed it, I handed it to her, she looked at it and handed it back.

Only the top part filled in (Fine and points). Everything else completely blank - Name, Address, Car, Place, Time etc.

I wasnt asked to sign anything, no pictures taken, didnt ask me my address but did look at my driving licence.

I told them I was going to dispute it and wished them a merry xmas.

Any ideas?

[Getragdogleg]

were you, um, looking at your phone ?

[Eleven]

Getragdogleg said:

were you, um, looking at your phone ?

Is that an offence then? Serious question.

[Getragdogleg]

Eleven said:

Getragdogleg said:

were you, um, looking at your phone ?

Is that an offence then? Serious question.

If it was in his hand then yes, its the holding it that is the crux of the issue.

[911F]

The phone was on the passenger seat, Car has Nav and bluetooth, but I do understand you can do other things with the phone.

I may have looked down, but then, I may have looked out the side window.

Either way, I was not using the phone in any way.

[Bigends]

I'd assume its been issued so just contest in line with any instructions

[Defcon5]

You have the 3rd layer of the carbon copy, so it may just be that it hasn't transferred, is there a faint mark at all?

[RG63AMG]

I keep my phone in my jacket in the boot as the amg has txt display (not that I use it much ) and when I got stopped once for " Being on the phone " the bib was most cross when after he searched the car at my request had to believe me as there was my phone in jacket, in boot!!

[Eleven]

Getragdogleg said:

Eleven said:

Getragdogleg said:

were you, um, looking at your phone ?

Is that an offence then? Serious question.

If it was in his hand then yes, its the holding it that is the crux of the issue.

He said it was on the seat, didn't he?

[911F]

There is no faint writing at all, the fine and points are clear..everything else completely blank...

[Getragdogleg]

Eleven said:

Getragdogleg said:

Eleven said:

Getragdogleg said:

were you, um, looking at your phone ?

Is that an offence then? Serious question.

If it was in his hand then yes, its the holding it that is the crux of the issue.

He said it was on the seat, didn't he?

It didn't email itself onto the seat, the Officer said (and maybe even wrote) that the OP had been looking down, its not a huge leap of imagination to suggest the officer formed the opinion that OP was holding the phone and then put it down when stopped or when he noticed the Officer.

I asked if he was looking at it, if he was not and it was not in his hand then have a go at fighting it, if he was indeed guilty as charged then man up and take the penalty.

[Eleven]

Getragdogleg said:

Eleven said:

Getragdogleg said:

Eleven said:

Getragdogleg said:

were you, um, looking at your phone ?

Is that an offence then? Serious question.

If it was in his hand then yes, its the holding it that is the crux of the issue.

He said it was on the seat, didn't he?

It didn't email itself onto the seat, the Officer said (and maybe even wrote) that the OP had been looking down, its not a huge leap of imagination to suggest the officer formed the opinion that OP was holding the phone and then put it down when stopped or when he noticed the Officer.

If the officer didn't actually see the phone being used, and has no evidence that it was being used, should a FPN have been issued? If so, how big a leap of imagination is permissible.

I don't know the answer by the way, serious questions.

[Getragdogleg]

Eleven said:

Getragdogleg said:

Eleven said:

Getragdogleg said:

Eleven said:

Getragdogleg said:

were you, um, looking at your phone ?

Is that an offence then? Serious question.

If it was in his hand then yes, its the holding it that is the crux of the issue.

He said it was on the seat, didn't he?

It didn't email itself onto the seat, the Officer said (and maybe even wrote) that the OP had been looking down, its not a huge leap of imagination to suggest the officer formed the opinion that OP was holding the phone and then put it down when stopped or when he noticed the Officer.

If the officer didn't actually see the phone being used, and has no evidence that it was being used, should a FPN have been issued? If so, how big a leap of imagination is permissible.

I don't know the answer by the way, serious questions.

Its one of those things though isn't it ? as I drive around the country I see hundreds of morons gawking at phones while driving, I think the Police must also see this.

Occasionally you will get something like this happen where the guy was not on the phone at all but it looked like he was.

[Eleven]

Getragdogleg said:

Its one of those things though isn't it ? as I drive around the country I see hundreds of morons gawking at phones while driving, I think the Police must also see this.

Occasionally you will get something like this happen where the guy was not on the phone at all but it looked like he was.

Oh absolutely. I see idiots on phones all the time and there's little that annoys me more. However I'd have thought that for Plod to issue a ticket it would be necessary for the officer to see the offence taking place or have evidence of it, rather than just thinking that someone was probably using a mobile phone whilst driving.

But then I am not particularly familiar with the law pertaining to such matters.

[allergictocheese]

The Police can be mistaken and a conviction is not a forgone conclusion. For example...

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/cumbrian-driver-...

[Jim1556]

allergictocheese said:

The Police can be mistaken and a conviction is not a forgone conclusion. For example...

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/cumbrian-driver-...

In this case it seems to have been, the guy had to appeal...

Plus, why wouldn't the officer have checked his phones? I can't believe he said "I didn’t feel that I had the know how or expertise in how to interrogate a mobile phone"

In this day and age, most companies (where there's any mobility involved) give you a bloody mobile! Ridiculous it even got to court and a sodding waste of my money!!!

[blueg33]

Jim1556 said:

allergictocheese said:

The Police can be mistaken and a conviction is not a forgone conclusion. For example...

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/cumbrian-driver-...

In this case it seems to have been, the guy had to appeal...

Plus, why wouldn't the officer have checked his phones? I can't believe he said "I didn’t feel that I had the know how or expertise in how to interrogate a mobile phone"

In this day and age, most companies (where there's any mobility involved) give you a bloody mobile! Ridiculous it even got to court and a sodding waste of my money!!!

I also assume that under recent legislation the defendant can't even recover costs if found not guilty.

If this is the case then the Police should have the onus put on them to be absolutely 100% certain that the acusation is correct and have robust evidence of that

[Red Devil]

[redacted]

[Eleven]

Red Devil said:

If the linked article proves anything is that your chances in a Magistrates Court are far slimmer than before a judge.

If you're before magistrates you're guilty. It is merely for them to decide just how guilty you are.

[zarjaz1991]

Eleven said:

If the officer didn't actually see the phone being used, and has no evidence that it was being used, should a FPN have been issued? If so, how big a leap of imagination is permissible.

I don't know the answer by the way, serious questions.

If the police decide you have committed an offence, then you have committed one.

Whether you physically have or not, is not the cardinal issue. The issue is whether the police think you have.