Weird one following scamera FPN offer

[cheeky]

So, after noticing that I seem to get points about every two years (and so reasoning that the likelihood of 3 points now becoming debilitating was slim), I eventually caved in to accept the conditional offer of a fixed penalty (for alleged 62mph in 50 on A3) by sending in my driving licence along with the form duly completed with payment details. This was done just within the time limit. I added that I was accepting the FPN but doing so reluctantly because I had not seen any evidence that I had been exceeding the speed limit and so could not be certain of my guilt.

Then, a couple of days later, I received both the form and my licence, unendorsed, back in the post, along with a letter from HMCS saying, inter alia, "your correspondence has been passed to the Camera Detected Offences Unit for their attention".

What does this mean? As far as I can see, I have fulfilled the requirements for accepting the FPN so they can't take that away from me, right? There's just a (no doubt slim) chance that didn't previoysly exist, that things may get snarled up in the system?

Have you come across this before, where someone has already sent the credit card details form in?

[Dino D]

Don't know the answer to your question but was wondering what sort of camera you got done by on the A3. Was it a fixed Gatso or mobile van and whereabouts on the A3?

[cheeky]

Scamera, parked at entrance to closed petrol station about a mile after the start of the three lane Kingston bypass section (after the last roundabout) heading southbound. Is it possible to be caught by fixed Gatsos? I thought they were all bright yellow and impossible to miss!

[Dino D]

I thought it had to mobile-the Gatsos on the A3 are impossible to miss, what with all the panic braking going on just before them it impossible to get nicked unless the raod is clear!

I have seen trafpol BMW's and Volvos sitting on the roadside heading southbound at and around the the spot you mentioned but never a scamera van...

Sorry to hear you got nicked, Hope you haven't been scammed too!

[Dwight VanDriver]

The following words you mention may well hold the key to why the CO was not accepted

"but doing so reluctantly because I had not seen any evidence that I had been exceeding the speed limit and so could not be certain of my guilt. " Bit like the girlie yes that means no?

They may be being super cautious and taking this as a Not Guilty on your part and now referring the matter to Court process and issue of summons.

Unless of course you have already a number of dirty marks (9) on your Licence whbich means Court under 'totting'.

Consider, if no dirty marks, either letting the matter run or contact to see just exactly what the position is.

dvd

[cheeky]

Dwight VanDriver said:

The following words you mention may well hold the key to why the CO was not accepted

"but doing so reluctantly because I had not seen any evidence that I had been exceeding the speed limit and so could not be certain of my guilt. " Bit like the girlie yes that means no?

No, it's stating the truth: "I'm going to cave in because of your extortion tactics but want you to know I'm not happy about the way you go about it."

[vonhosen]

cheeky said:

Dwight VanDriver said:

The following words you mention may well hold the key to why the CO was not accepted

"but doing so reluctantly because I had not seen any evidence that I had been exceeding the speed limit and so could not be certain of my guilt. " Bit like the girlie yes that means no?

No, it's stating the truth: "I'm going to cave in because of your extortion tactics but want you to know I'm not happy about the way you go about it."

Well they shouldn't accept it then. Acceptance of the offer should only be made where you are guilty of the offence. A court shouldn't accept a "I'm not sure I did it either", it should lead to a trial.

[cheeky]

And how can ANYONE know for certain on the basis of a FPN alone?

[vonhosen]

cheeky said:

And how can ANYONE know for certain on the basis of a FPN alone?

It's simple if you don't know you don't accept the FPN. You wait to see the evidence.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 25th September 16:50

[BliarsGoing]

vonhosen said:

cheeky said:

And how can ANYONE know for certain on the basis of a FPN alone?

It's simple if you don't know you don't accept the FPN. You wait to see the evidence.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 25th September 16:50

And SCP's are famous for making that easy?

[cheeky]

And then you risk more cost and the need to go to court. It's not simple. Why don't they show evidence when offering the FPN? It's not as if it's costly.

[randlemarcus]

But the SCPs rely on it being easier to shrug off the 3 points and £60 than face the [crackofdoomvoice]full majesty of the Judicial System[/crackofdoomvoice] for the heinous offence of Speeding with Intent Not to Think of the Children.

And, for a vast majority of people, it is easier. Which means they have underdeveloped processes to display evidence where there is not a legal requirement to do so.

[vonhosen]

cheeky said:

And then you risk more cost and the need to go to court. It's not simple. Why don't they show evidence when offering the FPN? It's not as if it's costly.

It is if you do it for every case, particuarly if you are going to show it all.
At court they can recover some of those costs where they disclose, with the FPN they can't.
There is no requirement to disclose evidence, unless you are being taken to court. Some SCPs will howver give a photo, but that in itself isn't all the evidence that would go towards proving the case.

[cheeky]

randlemarcus said:

But the SCPs rely on it being easier to shrug off the 3 points and £60 than face the [crackofdoomvoice]full majesty of the Judicial System[/crackofdoomvoice] for the heinous offence of Speeding with Intent Not to Think of the Children.

And, for a vast majority of people, it is easier. Which means they have underdeveloped processes to display evidence where there is not a legal requirement to do so.

... which justifies the note that I wrote.

[cheeky]

vonhosen said:

cheeky said:

And then you risk more cost and the need to go to court. It's not simple. Why don't they show evidence when offering the FPN? It's not as if it's costly.

It is if you do it for every case, particuarly if you are going to show it all.
At court they can recover some of those costs where they disclose, with the FPN they can't.
There is no requirement to disclose evidence, unless you are being taken to court. Some SCPs will howver give a photo, but that in itself isn't all the evidence that would go towards proving the case.

See? It's not simple.

[vonhosen]

cheeky said:

vonhosen said:

cheeky said:

And then you risk more cost and the need to go to court. It's not simple. Why don't they show evidence when offering the FPN? It's not as if it's costly.

It is if you do it for every case, particuarly if you are going to show it all.
At court they can recover some of those costs where they disclose, with the FPN they can't.
There is no requirement to disclose evidence, unless you are being taken to court. Some SCPs will howver give a photo, but that in itself isn't all the evidence that would go towards proving the case.

See? It's not simple.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[cheeky]

vonhosen said:

cheeky said:

vonhosen said:

cheeky said:

And then you risk more cost and the need to go to court. It's not simple. Why don't they show evidence when offering the FPN? It's not as if it's costly.

It is if you do it for every case, particuarly if you are going to show it all.
At court they can recover some of those costs where they disclose, with the FPN they can't.
There is no requirement to disclose evidence, unless you are being taken to court. Some SCPs will howver give a photo, but that in itself isn't all the evidence that would go towards proving the case.

See? It's not simple.

Seems pretty simple to me.

... as does an acceptance of the FPN coupled with a statement of dissatisfaction with the process to me.

[vonhosen]

cheeky said:

vonhosen said:

cheeky said:

vonhosen said:

cheeky said:

And then you risk more cost and the need to go to court. It's not simple. Why don't they show evidence when offering the FPN? It's not as if it's costly.

It is if you do it for every case, particuarly if you are going to show it all.
At court they can recover some of those costs where they disclose, with the FPN they can't.
There is no requirement to disclose evidence, unless you are being taken to court. Some SCPs will howver give a photo, but that in itself isn't all the evidence that would go towards proving the case.

See? It's not simple.

Seems pretty simple to me.

... as does an acceptance of the FPN coupled with a statement of dissatisfaction with the process to me.

But you didn't just voice your disatisfaction at the process, you said you couldn't be sure you had commited the offence.

That's not an admission of guilt.
If you were asked to plea in court & you said "Guilty" "But I can't be sure I actually did it", they won't accept the plea.

It'll mean a trial.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 25th September 17:38

[cheeky]

And you never can be, on the basis of just a FPN and no evidence. So, by definition, every acceptance of FPN unaccompanied by evidence is made without certainty, making mine no different to any other.

[vonhosen]

cheeky said:

And you never can be, on the basis of just a FPN and no evidence. So, by definition, every acceptance of FPN unaccompanied by evidence is made without certainty, making mine no different to any other.

If I went past a camera & knew I was speeding when I did so, then a conditional offer came my way for that offence I'd know.

If I didn't see the camera & the conditional offer came my way, I wouldn't know, so I would ask to see the evidence thereby rejecting the conditional offer.