Wow - sometimes the right results happen (speeding)

[cirks]

Just got a letter through the post from Herts Safety Camera Partnership reversing the Fixed Penalty Notice I got in Luton in May 2005. The lovely people didn't implement a Traffic Reg Order correctly and therefore are now reversing all FPNs that were handed out during that time (they got a new TRO in place at the location as of Feb2006) . I nearly contested the FPN at the time because of the questionnable legality of some of the temporary speed limit signs being used but, like too many people, just put up with the points and fine.

Oh well, now I need to send my licence off, get the points deducted, get the refund of the penalty amount. No interest payment of course and I'll now have the hassle of trying to get refunds of the increase insurance premiums this has cost my wife and I over the last three years on 3 cars What chance of success on that?

[FiveStar]

what location is this in luton? are they sending letters to all involved?

[JustinP1]

Very good I would say.

Get the insurance company to put in writing what it has cost you. Put it in writing to the SCP. If they don't pay, take them to court!

[cirks]

FiveStar said:

what location is this in luton?

Lower Luton Road - the permanent speed cameras along the section towards Batford.
[edited for correct location as it wasn't the one I initially replied with where I got my other penalty for where the incorrect signage was used....]

FiveStar said:

are they sending letters to all involved?

Letters supposedly being sent to everyone who got an FPN on that section of road whilst they didn't have a legal TRO in place. I would guess that this would be between roughtly feb 05 (I think when the roadworks started) and feb06 (when they got the new TRO).

Edited by cirks on Saturday 23 February 14:14

[fatboy b]

JustinP1 said:

Very good I would say.

Get the insurance company to put in writing what it has cost you. Put it in writing to the SCP. If they don't pay, take them to court!

And what about the people who got bans through totting-up because of this?

[Einion Yrth]

fatboy b said:

JustinP1 said:

Very good I would say.

Get the insurance company to put in writing what it has cost you. Put it in writing to the SCP. If they don't pay, take them to court!

And what about the people who got bans through totting-up because of this?

Potential suit for loss of earnings?

[streaky]

Who pays? I bet it's the taxpayer.

Our 'darling' Chancellor (aka "The Monkey" ) and 'pension robbing' Gordo (aka "The Organ Grinder" ... our organs!) have just cost me (the equivalent of) a 29p tax hike ... and that's on top of my Northern Cock-up mortgage (the only thing I have in common with Darling), so I'm not inclined to have more extracted.

Those who made the error in the first place should pay, firstly with their jobs and secondly with their cash - including raiding their (probably index-linked) pensions .

Streaky

[mel]

One of my blokes at work got the same letter by the sounds of it, will post a scan up tomorrow.

[mark69sheer]

hmmm not all the results will be right...
what about someone doing sixty will they be let off. I presume so but is it the right thing to do?
Everyone took their ticket? So they knew really that they were speeding.

However.. I don't want to be a paaarttyy pooper so yes...good on y'all. have a drink and a smile.

[Jasandjules]

fatboy b said:

And what about the people who got bans through totting-up because of this?

Reasonably forseeable consequential loss. I.e. they can claim for it.

If these sorts of things happened more and the Scams stopped making the money, they'd soon try to find some other way to raise funds without the use of Scumeras.

[RtdRacer]

fatboy b said:

JustinP1 said:

Very good I would say.

Get the insurance company to put in writing what it has cost you. Put it in writing to the SCP. If they don't pay, take them to court!

And what about the people who got bans through totting-up because of this?

They're allowed to drive twice as much as normal for the next 6 months.

[RtdRacer]

Ha. I had to laugh when I thought of this.


How come when the Bib nail someone using an obscure point in law, there's uproar. But when the other side make a technical error, it's considered just and fair?

[cirks]

RtdRacer said:

Ha. I had to laugh when I thought of this.
How come when the Bib nail someone using an obscure point in law, there's uproar. But when the other side make a technical error, it's considered just and fair?

Using obscure points in law is legal (despite the uproar!), however, prosecuting someone for an illegally enforced speed limit is not lawful and therefore deserves to be thrown out.

mark69sheer said:

hmmm not all the results will be right...
what about someone doing sixty will they be let off. I presume so but is it the right thing to do?
Everyone took their ticket? So they knew really that they were speeding.

Although I may well agree with you that I did not contest my ticket due to the photographic evidence from the police of the speed I was doing at the time, it doesn't mean that I actually accepted the basis for the conviction. I accepted the ticket because of the time, effort and cost of proving that the speed signs being used did not comply with legislation. The fact that I eventually have been 'let off' due to the SCP not doing their job properly is a benefit that I'm not going to let worry me Fortunately, someone who did challenge their ticket probably caused the SCP to investigate the legality of the TRO. Also, unless the speed limit is properly enforced, doing 48 in a 60 isn't speeding!

[mark69sheer]

cirks said:

RtdRacer said:

Ha. I had to laugh when I thought of this.
How come when the Bib nail someone using an obscure point in law, there's uproar. But when the other side make a technical error, it's considered just and fair?

Using obscure points in law is legal (despite the uproar!), however, prosecuting someone for an illegally enforced speed limit is not lawful and therefore deserves to be thrown out.

mark69sheer said:

hmmm not all the results will be right...
what about someone doing sixty will they be let off. I presume so but is it the right thing to do?
Everyone took their ticket? So they knew really that they were speeding.

Although I may well agree with you that I did not contest my ticket due to the photographic evidence from the police of the speed I was doing at the time, it doesn't mean that I actually accepted the basis for the conviction. I accepted the ticket because of the time, effort and cost of proving that the speed signs being used did not comply with legislation. The fact that I eventually have been 'let off' due to the SCP not doing their job properly is a benefit that I'm not going to let worry me Fortunately, someone who did challenge their ticket probably caused the SCP to investigate the legality of the TRO. Also, unless the speed limit is properly enforced, doing 48 in a 60 isn't speeding!

Hey don't take me seriously when poilice officers argue their way out on technicalities I am actually all for the pendulum swinging the other way for a change.

I had a similar thing when I was 'caught' for speeding by a temporary camera at roadworks on a sliproad.
The motorway led onto a sliproad with a 30 temporary limit. I had left the motorway near the end of the sliproad due to a hgv on the inside lane and a car joining from the slipway (it was both an on and off ramp) immediately upon joining the sliproad I started to slow but was caught at 30. I couldn't slow any earlier from motorway speed without causing obstruction or danger .
I went to a solicitor claiming the siting of the speed camera didn't allow enough time to slow from motorway speed, He said it probably didn't but I had been registered too fast through the camera so was banged to rights and that I could argue the technicalities in mitigation but that it would probably cost around £5000 for expert witnesses.
I took my £60 fine

[flemke]

RtdRacer said:

Ha. I had to laugh when I thought of this.


How come when the Bib nail someone using an obscure point in law, there's uproar. But when the other side make a technical error, it's considered just and fair?

If the CPS were to exploit an obscure point in law to nail someone who was widely despised, such as this delightful chap:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_van_Hoogstra...
there would be broad support, perhaps jubilation.

When, on the other hand, the CPS or BIB exploit an obscure point in law to penalise what is in the vastly overwhelming majority of instances perfectly benign behaviour, is it any surprise that many citizens react in uproar?
It's not about whether it's the authorities or the public who are exploiting the obscure point; indeed, it's not about the obscure point at all. It's about whether the outcome is considered to be just.

[mel]

This sounds like it's going to be a VERY expensive mistake for them, they are paying consequential losses for things like additional insurance premiums, don't know 100% how those stand who lost licenses through totting up but I would imagine that compensation will be paid.

The period effected is 19th Aug 2004 - 25th Aug 2005 so 1 year and 6 days even though the reality is that most of those points will now have dropped off for the people involved.

Claims for insurance costs can be sent to

Insurance Section
Herts CC
County Hall
Pegs Lane
Herts
SG13 8DN

[mel]

sorry temp' taken down as you could read the personal details through the blacking out

Edited by mel on Wednesday 20th February 10:55

Edited by mel on Wednesday 20th February 10:59

[cirks]

thanks for the insurance claims address/details Mel