Fixed penalty fines how to evade them !
Discussion
Ok i was going to fast 44mph in a 30mph .
Can anyone assit me in not contributing to their coffers.
The notice issue date was 16/8/07 but the offence occured on 25/7/7.In all the blurrb it is stated that you have to be contacted within 14 days of the offence oopps ! not 22 days .I have requested a piccie & it is me .
It was a mobile luvvy chap but i didnt even see him what a suprise
Anybody got an idea/help ?
Can anyone assit me in not contributing to their coffers.
The notice issue date was 16/8/07 but the offence occured on 25/7/7.In all the blurrb it is stated that you have to be contacted within 14 days of the offence oopps ! not 22 days .I have requested a piccie & it is me .
It was a mobile luvvy chap but i didnt even see him what a suprise
Anybody got an idea/help ?
NIP has to be sent to the registered keeper within 14 days, not including the day of the offence, so as you say you're 8 days over the limit making the NIP null and void. If someone has nominated you as the driver however, and it was sent to them withing 14 days then it still stands. It it SENT however, and not recieved that counts. eg, it could have been lost in the post for a month and still stands. the date of issue and the post mark/franking date is the important bit. If they are after the 14 days then as said - null and void. Write back to them pointing this out with a photocopy of the NIP and photocopy of the franked envelope.
Should just get dropped.
Should just get dropped.
I don't think you're evanding anything. It sounds to me that they're trying deliberately to defraud you of 60 quid and 1/4 of your licence for something where you have no case to answer after 14 days. Very good luck.
Frankly they've declared war on the motorist and have no more honour than the clampers who hide up waiting for you to leave the scene before pouncing.
They're running a dodgy private business like any other dodgy private business and require to be treated with the commensurate absolute contempt.
It's just a shame it's not possible to personally sue the individual responsible for this attempted fraud.
I wonder if it would be regarded as "evasion" if you decided not to pay a cowboy plumber who's trying to charge you for a part he never fitted. No, didn't think so.
SM
Frankly they've declared war on the motorist and have no more honour than the clampers who hide up waiting for you to leave the scene before pouncing.
They're running a dodgy private business like any other dodgy private business and require to be treated with the commensurate absolute contempt.
It's just a shame it's not possible to personally sue the individual responsible for this attempted fraud.
I wonder if it would be regarded as "evasion" if you decided not to pay a cowboy plumber who's trying to charge you for a part he never fitted. No, didn't think so.
SM
ajstephe said:
Except it's not quite like that is it. The OP states that they were travelling over the speed limit. Not exactly defrauding is it?
It's quite simple and forgive the bluntness to this but, don't want these people to 'defraud' you, don't speed and if you do speed be prepared to accept the consequences.
Yes it's exactly like that. Within 14 days he has a case to answer, they can legitimiately claim the money with the fully force of the law behind them. After 14 days there is no case to answer, nothing to pay. Yet they post out the demand anyway hoping that he doesn't notice. If that's not attempted fraud, I'd like to know what is.It's quite simple and forgive the bluntness to this but, don't want these people to 'defraud' you, don't speed and if you do speed be prepared to accept the consequences.
Perhaps I can run my business using a similar model, maybe sending out a demand for a service not delivered in the hope that the accounts department doesn't notice and just pays it anyhow.
SM
Edited by supermono on Wednesday 5th September 12:16
The Tuscan Rat said:
As you have said " I was going to fast...."
Sorry yes you were, don't know the road, don't like Scamera vans, but you got caught. Only you had control over your right foot.
Ahh but he wasn't caught was he? He has no case to answer because they've failed to catch him. Oh sure they've photographed him speeding but in order to "catch him" he must be notified within 14 days. That's the law that is. Sorry yes you were, don't know the road, don't like Scamera vans, but you got caught. Only you had control over your right foot.
Perhaps you're suggesting he pays up out of good will because they could have caught him? Perhaps you ought to post in a few cheques for the times you've broken the speed limit and also could have been caught?
SM
ajstephe said:
Except it's not quite like that is it. The OP states that they were travelling over the speed limit. Not exactly defrauding is it?
It's quite simple and forgive the bluntness to this but, don't want these people to 'defraud' you, don't speed and if you do speed be prepared to accept the consequences.
If the authorities expect us to obey the law, they should be expected to obey the same laws themselves. If they have not followed the law and sent the NoIP within the time frame allowed then the OP is quite entitled to tell them to foxtrot oscar.It's quite simple and forgive the bluntness to this but, don't want these people to 'defraud' you, don't speed and if you do speed be prepared to accept the consequences.
If the authorities don't want people 'getting off', then they should follow the law - if they don't, they should accept the consequences.
It's a joke isn't it? They frame a law with the 14 day rule to make sure you can't be unreasonably asked to recall who was driving too long ago. Then when the camera businesses attempt to operate outside that law and fail to scam the money, they start running around crying "loophole".
Last night I would have been found guilty of drink driving but I escaped prosecution by use of the "not having had a drink" loophole.
Andy
Last night I would have been found guilty of drink driving but I escaped prosecution by use of the "not having had a drink" loophole.
Andy
Hi guys
Thanks for your assistance BUT due to some futher investigation by the office the car is still lease hire owned when we were told it had been transfered to company ownership. GREAT !.
Lease hire company received the NIP within 14 days but had 28 days to respond they kindly sat on it for 2 weeks.So then after every 'link ' in the chain has 28 days to respond.
So beware all you company drivers !!
Pay Gordon your dues !!! me included .
Thanks for your assistance BUT due to some futher investigation by the office the car is still lease hire owned when we were told it had been transfered to company ownership. GREAT !.
Lease hire company received the NIP within 14 days but had 28 days to respond they kindly sat on it for 2 weeks.So then after every 'link ' in the chain has 28 days to respond.
So beware all you company drivers !!
Pay Gordon your dues !!! me included .
TVRPhillip said:
Oh by the way i was out of the built up area and accelerating up a hill to the 40mph zone, still over the limit.
You may well find that due to disappointing income levels the camera company had the speed limit extended a few hundred yards out of the village. I believe that inappropriate speed limits are the new big idea in up and coming camera businesses.Unfortunately sensible speed limits focussed in town tend to be observed which really hurts the profits....
Sorry you've been fleeced buddy.
SM
ps well unless you were flying around like a dangerous nutter in which case, good!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff