Caught speeding - incorrectly classed as a goods vehicle
Discussion
Just had two NIPs through for my brother, caught two minutes apart on a 70mph dual carriageway.
The first is for 81mph at 13:39 for the alleged offence of 'Exceed 70mph dual carriageway'.
The second is 80mph at 13:41 for the alleged offence of 'Exceeding speed limit for goods vehicle - manned equipment'.
It is not a goods vehicle, it's a VW T5 Shuttle, so is a class M1. Just a car, so is not bound by the lower speed limit for vans.
At the minute we have just been asked to identify the driver as it is my Dad's car. I assume we do this and then question the incorrect classification after they've got in contact with him? Would there then be a chance of the second charge being dropped and being reissued as a car speeding fine?
He already has 3 points for speeding two years ago.
Thanks.
The first is for 81mph at 13:39 for the alleged offence of 'Exceed 70mph dual carriageway'.
The second is 80mph at 13:41 for the alleged offence of 'Exceeding speed limit for goods vehicle - manned equipment'.
It is not a goods vehicle, it's a VW T5 Shuttle, so is a class M1. Just a car, so is not bound by the lower speed limit for vans.
At the minute we have just been asked to identify the driver as it is my Dad's car. I assume we do this and then question the incorrect classification after they've got in contact with him? Would there then be a chance of the second charge being dropped and being reissued as a car speeding fine?
He already has 3 points for speeding two years ago.
Thanks.
Corpulent Tosser said:
If both are on the same stretch of road is it possible to argue that it is one offence ?
I am sure one of our PH laywers would be able to advise but I seem to recall someone using that argument before and I think it was accepted.
Yes. I am sure one of our PH laywers would be able to advise but I seem to recall someone using that argument before and I think it was accepted.
Under no circumstances should you pay two fixed penalties in the circumstances described.
Speed awareness course? Otherwise, take both to court.
agtlaw said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
If both are on the same stretch of road is it possible to argue that it is one offence ?
I am sure one of our PH laywers would be able to advise but I seem to recall someone using that argument before and I think it was accepted.
Yes. I am sure one of our PH laywers would be able to advise but I seem to recall someone using that argument before and I think it was accepted.
Under no circumstances should you pay two fixed penalties in the circumstances described.
Speed awareness course? Otherwise, take both to court.
If you get caught by two different cameras on the same road but 100 miles apart, you couldn't argue that was one "instance" could you?
Centurion07 said:
agtlaw said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
If both are on the same stretch of road is it possible to argue that it is one offence ?
I am sure one of our PH laywers would be able to advise but I seem to recall someone using that argument before and I think it was accepted.
Yes. I am sure one of our PH laywers would be able to advise but I seem to recall someone using that argument before and I think it was accepted.
Under no circumstances should you pay two fixed penalties in the circumstances described.
Speed awareness course? Otherwise, take both to court.
If you get caught by two different cameras on the same road but 100 miles apart, you couldn't argue that was one "instance" could you?
Thanks everyone, made us feel a bit better. Haven't told him yet though!
The force operates speeding awareness courses, but we won't know if he's offered one until we reply to them to confirm he is the driver.
I've checked the V5 document and it is an M1 class vehicle.
What about it being marked down as a goods vehicle though? Will this charge be thrown out once this error is made known to them, or is it possible for them to change the prosecution to a speeding car charge?
The force operates speeding awareness courses, but we won't know if he's offered one until we reply to them to confirm he is the driver.
I've checked the V5 document and it is an M1 class vehicle.
What about it being marked down as a goods vehicle though? Will this charge be thrown out once this error is made known to them, or is it possible for them to change the prosecution to a speeding car charge?
jkh112 said:
I wonder if they have put through 2 offences as at the time they were unsure as to the vehicle class. That way you can confirm the vehicle class to have one offence dropped but whichever type of vehicle it is then one charge will stand.
That actually sounds quite feasible as surly both offences would be identical offence Philplop said:
I've checked the V5 document and it is an M1 class vehicle.
What about it being marked down as a goods vehicle though?
I have a T5 Shuttle too, and it's definitely not a goods vehicle - it's a minibus - and allowed to do 70 on dual carriageways and 60 on NSL roads etc.What about it being marked down as a goods vehicle though?
You are banged to rights on the speeding, but the question is by what margin if they're insisting it's subject to the lower limits of a goods vehicle?
Once you confirm the driver and get the reply back you'll be in a position to know - it may be worth heading over to pepipoo.com to see what they think.
Just to update this a bit, he got the NIP in his name. Pleaded guilty to the exceeding the speed limit one and was offered a course, so accepted that.
He's taking the "exceeding the speed limit for a goods vehicle" to court. Once there is it likely to be dismissed once he points out it's not a goods vehicle?
Thanks.
He's taking the "exceeding the speed limit for a goods vehicle" to court. Once there is it likely to be dismissed once he points out it's not a goods vehicle?
Thanks.
On the basis postulated - possible if you get a weak prosecutor, but very unlikely. If there's an issue then the court has the power to amend the wording. 80+ mph is an offence in any class of vehicle and over the threshold to prosecute.
A better strategy would be to ask the prosecutor to withdraw the matter on the basis that it's one continuing offence, and a speed awareness course has been completed. This must be done before plea. Ask to speak to the prosecutor before the case is called on - get to court early and explain the communication issue with the usher. Also point out the vehicle class error to the prosecutor, as that in combination with a more sensible submission is likely to find favour.
"Pointing out" things in court means taking original documentary evidence and copies with you. I.e. Evidence of the class of vehicle, evidence that a speed awareness course has been done, the paperwork showing the time and date of the other offence.
Don't wear jeans to court.
ETA: Make it clear to the prosecutor that both the NIP and the summons / requisition contain the vehicle class error.
A better strategy would be to ask the prosecutor to withdraw the matter on the basis that it's one continuing offence, and a speed awareness course has been completed. This must be done before plea. Ask to speak to the prosecutor before the case is called on - get to court early and explain the communication issue with the usher. Also point out the vehicle class error to the prosecutor, as that in combination with a more sensible submission is likely to find favour.
"Pointing out" things in court means taking original documentary evidence and copies with you. I.e. Evidence of the class of vehicle, evidence that a speed awareness course has been done, the paperwork showing the time and date of the other offence.
Don't wear jeans to court.
ETA: Make it clear to the prosecutor that both the NIP and the summons / requisition contain the vehicle class error.
Edited by agtlaw on Saturday 19th September 00:09
mellowman said:
I have a T5 Shuttle too, and it's definitely not a goods vehicle - it's a minibus
"Only" eight passenger seats, so it comes in just below the minibus regs. Basically, it's an MPV, just the same as any other sprogbus. But is it a car-MPV or a car-derived-van MPV? If the latter, then it comes in van speed limits because it's over 2t GVW.A quick google doesn't find anything authoritative either way, and does find a bunch of threads for people trying to get them treated as vans for tax, so it could go either way.
Your better bet is trying to make sure you only get nicked once, since both are over the actual limit, and they're only 2min apart.
I thought the classification came down to a row of seats behind the driver and a specfic area of glass in the rear to be classed as a dual purpose vehicle and have the car speed limits?
This is copy and pasted from the construction and use regs 1986
dual-purpose vehicle
a vehicle constructed or adapted for the carriage both of passengers and of goods or burden of any description, being a vehicle of which the unladen weight does not exceed 2040 kg, and which either—
(i)is so constructed or adapted that the driving power of the engine is, or by the appropriate use of the controls of the vehicle can be, transmitted to all the wheels of the vehicle; or
(ii)satisfies the following conditions as to construction, namely—
(a)the vehicle must be permanently fitted with a rigid roof, with or without a sliding panel;
(b)the area of the vehicle to the rear of the driver's seat must—
(i)be permanently fitted with at least one row of transverse seats (fixed or folding) for two or more passengers and those seats must be properly sprung or cushioned and provided with upholstered back-rests, attached either to the seats or to a side or the floor of the vehicle; and
(ii)be lit on each side and at the rear by a window or windows of glass or other transparent material having an area or aggregate area of not less than 1850 square centimetres on each side and not less than 770 square centimetres at the rear; and
(c)the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the back-rests of the row of transverse seats satisfying the requirements specified in head (i) of sub-paragraph (b) (or, if there is more than one such row of seats, the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the back-rests of the rearmost such row) must, when the seats are ready for use, be not less than one-third of the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the rearmost part of the floor of the vehicle.
This is copy and pasted from the construction and use regs 1986
dual-purpose vehicle
a vehicle constructed or adapted for the carriage both of passengers and of goods or burden of any description, being a vehicle of which the unladen weight does not exceed 2040 kg, and which either—
(i)is so constructed or adapted that the driving power of the engine is, or by the appropriate use of the controls of the vehicle can be, transmitted to all the wheels of the vehicle; or
(ii)satisfies the following conditions as to construction, namely—
(a)the vehicle must be permanently fitted with a rigid roof, with or without a sliding panel;
(b)the area of the vehicle to the rear of the driver's seat must—
(i)be permanently fitted with at least one row of transverse seats (fixed or folding) for two or more passengers and those seats must be properly sprung or cushioned and provided with upholstered back-rests, attached either to the seats or to a side or the floor of the vehicle; and
(ii)be lit on each side and at the rear by a window or windows of glass or other transparent material having an area or aggregate area of not less than 1850 square centimetres on each side and not less than 770 square centimetres at the rear; and
(c)the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the back-rests of the row of transverse seats satisfying the requirements specified in head (i) of sub-paragraph (b) (or, if there is more than one such row of seats, the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the back-rests of the rearmost such row) must, when the seats are ready for use, be not less than one-third of the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the rearmost part of the floor of the vehicle.
Cfnteabag said:
I thought the classification came down to a row of seats behind the driver and a specfic area of glass in the rear to be classed as a dual purpose vehicle and have the car speed limits?
Yes, it is - if you're looking at getting DPV classification - which isn't the question here.agtlaw said:
On the basis postulated - possible if you get a weak prosecutor, but very unlikely. If there's an issue then the court has the power to amend the wording. 80+ mph is an offence in any class of vehicle and over the threshold to prosecute.
A better strategy would be to ask the prosecutor to withdraw the matter on the basis that it's one continuing offence, and a speed awareness course has been completed. This must be done before plea. Ask to speak to the prosecutor before the case is called on - get to court early and explain the communication issue with the usher. Also point out the vehicle class error to the prosecutor, as that in combination with a more sensible submission is likely to find favour.
"Pointing out" things in court means taking original documentary evidence and copies with you. I.e. Evidence of the class of vehicle, evidence that a speed awareness course has been done, the paperwork showing the time and date of the other offence.
Don't wear jeans to court.
ETA: Make it clear to the prosecutor that both the NIP and the summons / requisition contain the vehicle class error.
Agt, for a past case I sent the same to the CPS prior to the court date and they wrote back having dropped the case. A better strategy would be to ask the prosecutor to withdraw the matter on the basis that it's one continuing offence, and a speed awareness course has been completed. This must be done before plea. Ask to speak to the prosecutor before the case is called on - get to court early and explain the communication issue with the usher. Also point out the vehicle class error to the prosecutor, as that in combination with a more sensible submission is likely to find favour.
"Pointing out" things in court means taking original documentary evidence and copies with you. I.e. Evidence of the class of vehicle, evidence that a speed awareness course has been done, the paperwork showing the time and date of the other offence.
Don't wear jeans to court.
ETA: Make it clear to the prosecutor that both the NIP and the summons / requisition contain the vehicle class error.
Edited by agtlaw on Saturday 19th September 00:09
Different circumstances, if it matters it was a prosecution for not naming the driver and I sent in all the correspondence with the safety partnership showing I had requested info, asked questions but they had cut short the dialogue.
Any reason why the OP couldn't do that?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff