'Average' court costs?

[PP le Peu]

After a little fiasco with the Magistrates' Court 'losing' my guilty plea for speeding so charged me with Failure to give information (£660 fine, £66 Victim Sur, £100 costs) they are now saying my case will be listed for an application to reopen under S142 MCA.

I was captured on camera doing 55mph on a 40mph dual carriageway, which I assume is the reason they didn't just issue a Fixed Penalty?

Realistically, what costs should I expect for 55 in a 40? Or is it not that simple?

Thanks in advance!

[martinbiz]

55 in a 40 would normally be a fixed Penalty

[carboy2017]

If I'm not mistaken the court takes into consideration your earnings when imposing a fine and also if you contest and lose the case then they can impose a load of money in costs too (again depends on the type of case and if you were on a fishing expedition)

[PP le Peu]

martinbiz said:

55 in a 40 would normally be a fixed Penalty

Really? First thing I got off the police was an NIP letter, with no offer of a Fixed Penalty or Speed Awareness Course - the threshold in a 40mph zone is 53mph...

[SS2.]

PP le Peu said:

martinbiz said:

55 in a 40 would normally be a fixed Penalty

Really? First thing I got off the police was an NIP letter, with no offer of a Fixed Penalty or Speed Awareness Course - the threshold in a 40mph zone is 53mph...

They can't issue a FPN (or an invitation to attend a Speed Awareness Course - not relevant in your case) until the identity of the driver is known.

FWIW, an alleged 55mph in a 40mph limit is well within FPN territory.

[martinbiz]

Yes that could be correct, it depends on the force/SCP you are dealing with. You may have just received a S172 document requesting information about the driver, when you return that you will then get offered the choice of a FP. Sometimes you will get both documents together. If you failed to complete the S172 that is why you have been convicted of the failing to give information resulting in the nasty fine and 6 points you have received

[SS2.]

PP le Peu said:

After a little fiasco with the Magistrates' Court 'losing' my guilty plea for speeding so charged me with Failure to give information (£660 fine, £66 Victim Sur, £100 costs) they are now saying my case will be listed for an application to reopen under S142 MCA.

This makes little sense.

How can the Magistrates 'losing' a guilty plea result in you being charged with failing to furnish ?

Did you respond to the initial s.172 request (annexed to the NIP) ? Note this would / should have been returned to the issuing camera partnership.

[agtlaw]

PP le Peu said:

After a little fiasco with the Magistrates' Court 'losing' my guilty plea for speeding so charged me with Failure to give information (£660 fine, £66 Victim Sur, £100 costs) they are now saying my case will be listed for an application to reopen under S142 MCA.

I was captured on camera doing 55mph on a 40mph dual carriageway, which I assume is the reason they didn't just issue a Fixed Penalty?

Realistically, what costs should I expect for 55 in a 40? Or is it not that simple?

Thanks in advance!

Assuming your case is re-opened and you are able to plead guilty to speeding then the court will likely:

Endorse 3 penalty points
Fine you approximately one-third of your net weekly income (max £1000 but not usually over £750)
Prosecution costs £85
Surcharge equal to 10% of the fine but minimum £30

Alternatively, if you are able to persuade the court that there are good reasons why you did not accept the fixed penalty offer (presumably you didn't receive it) then the court might do the following:

Endorse 3 penalty points
Fine £100
Prosecution costs £85
Surcharge equal to 10% of the fine but minimum £30

If you're doing really well then you might avoid prosecution costs and be fined only £70 with a £30 surcharge. There's some nonsense on a .gov website wrongly stating that there is a minimum fine of £100. Ignore this.

[PP le Peu]

SS2. said:

This makes little sense.

How can the Magistrates 'losing' a guilty plea result in you being charged with failing to furnish ?

Did you respond to the initial s.172 request (annexed to the NIP) ? Note this would / should have been returned to the issuing camera partnership.

Yes, I completed the S172 after requesting a copy of the photograph (we weren't sure who was driving that day).
I also completed the Single Justice Procedural Notice when that arrived (because they lost the S172 which I didn't realise at the time)
All a bit of a mess really.

[martinbiz]

OP you need to lay out a readable timeline of what you got sent and how and when you responded to get any meaningful advice

[PP le Peu]

agtlaw said:

Assuming your case is re-opened and you are able to plead guilty to speeding then the court will likely:

Endorse 3 penalty points
Fine you approximately one-third of your net weekly income (max £1000 but not usually over £750)
Prosecution costs £85
Surcharge equal to 10% of the fine but minimum £30

Alternatively, if you are able to persuade the court that there are good reasons why you did not accept the fixed penalty offer (presumably you didn't receive it) then the court might do the following:

Endorse 3 penalty points
Fine £100
Prosecution costs £85
Surcharge equal to 10% of the fine but minimum £30

If you're doing really well then you might avoid prosecution costs and be fined only £70 with a £30 surcharge. There's some nonsense on a .gov website wrongly stating that there is a minimum fine of £100. Ignore this.

Thanks. This helps greatly.

[SS2.]

PP le Peu said:

SS2. said:

This makes little sense.

How can the Magistrates 'losing' a guilty plea result in you being charged with failing to furnish ?

Did you respond to the initial s.172 request (annexed to the NIP) ? Note this would / should have been returned to the issuing camera partnership.

Yes, I completed the S172 after requesting a copy of the photograph (we weren't sure who was driving that day).
I also completed the Single Justice Procedural Notice when that arrived (because they lost the S172 which I didn't realise at the time)
All a bit of a mess really.

Did you decide who was driving at the time and nominate that person on the s.172 request ?

If the SCP didn't receive your s.172 response, did they not issue a reminder ?

When you received the SJPN, what alleged offence(s) were listed ?

How did you plead to the offence(s) listed on the SJPN ?

As Martin suggests above, more [detailed] information is required.

[PP le Peu]

Just to recap..

Received an NIP
Requested copy of the image to identify driver
Realised it was me so completed the S172
Also responded to the image letter admitting it was me
Received a Single Justice Procedural Notice
Completed a Plea, along with letter asking why I had received an SJPN
Received a Notice of Endorsement and a Notice of Fine for Failure to give information
Responded asking basically WTF with copies of all my responses
Your emails regarding your case were forwarded to our legal department for consideration.
Was told today my case can be listed for an application to reopen under S142 MCA before the SJP Road Traffic Court, "..so that your guilty plea can be taken into account"
Popped on here for some advice...

[SydneyBridge]

do you send anything tracked/recorded so you can prove it got to them?

[agtlaw]

Rookie error not using the makeaplea website to respond to the SJPN.

[Dave Hedgehog]

agtlaw said:

Rookie error not using the makeaplea website to respond to the SJPN.

whats that?

[SS2.]

Dave Hedgehog said:

agtlaw said:

Rookie error not using the makeaplea website to respond to the SJPN.

whats that?

Make a Plea

[martinbiz]

SydneyBridge said:

do you send anything tracked/recorded so you can prove it got to them?

I don’t think they’re disputing that they didn’t receive the OP’s correspondence, that’s why they have offered to reopen

[PP le Peu]

SydneyBridge said:

do you send anything tracked/recorded so you can prove it got to them?

No that was my schoolboy error, though I do have copies of everything.
I'm told that 1st class post is an accepted form or service - is that correct.

[kestral]

They will have got the documentation.

They have cocked up with this single magistrate sitting alone stamping forms lark.Forms that they don't read properly.

This is not the first time I have heard of this happening.