Fixed Penalty Notice - Disproportionate

cyclonebri1

I too find this unbelievable. Both in respect of the police reaction and your naivety in answering.

However, as you were not actually using your car in the persuance of your employment, just on the road to get you there, maybe that could be an argument.

Why won't that work anyone? ?

Chippy_Minton_2

hottomato wrote: »

Its was a first offence.

NO, your three points for speeding was your first offence.

thescouselander

This is unbelievable - I definitely think you need to fight this one. As I understand it you only need third party insurance to drive on a public road. The fact is you were probably still insured and for the policeman to assume otherwise is completely bogus.

With regards to the payment - since it is such a small sum of money involved you could probably argue the old lady was just reimbursing your out of pocket expenses and it wasn't actually paid work at all.

Better get some proper legal advice - if you have legal expenses cover on your household or motor insurance they might cover the cost of a solicitor - worth looking into.

hottomato

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I too find this unbelievable. Both in respect of the police reaction and your naivety in answering.

However, as you were not actually using your car in the persuance of your employment, just on the road to get you there, maybe that could be an argument.

Why won't that work anyone? ?

I doubt if that would do it as I was carrying working materials.
I'm not exactly trying to say I was totally innocent, Naiive perhaps but I do think its all dispropotionate. Thats the basis I want to use to appeal. A warning would have been enough and I would have sorted it out accordingly

Lemonade_Pockets

hottomato wrote: »

I doubt if that would do it as I was carrying working materials.
I'm not exactly trying to say I was totally innocent, Naiive perhaps but I do think its all dispropotionate. Thats the basis I want to use to appeal. A warning would have been enough and I would have sorted it out accordingly

Yes i think we all agree that the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime, however i doubt you'll get it overturned solely on this basis. Which is bizaree since i think they could of given you 3 points and £60 for not wearing a seatbelt. Maybe its brucey bonus's for catching uninsured drivers at the moment??

Anyway i would persue scouselanders line of enquiry if you want a real chance of avoiding this.

Chippy_Minton_2

thescouselander wrote: »

This is unbelievable - I definitely think you need to fight this one. As I understand it you only need third party insurance to drive on a public road. The fact is you were probably still insured and for the policeman to assume otherwise is completely bogus.

With regards to the payment - since it is such a small sum of money involved you could probably argue the old lady was just reimbursing your out of pocket expenses and it wasn't actually paid work at all.

You have raised two separate issues here.

The police can check whether the OP was covered for business use. He wasn't so therefore the ticket was issued.

They can also check if the OP was covered for hire or reward. I would doubt he wasn't most people aren't unless they are private hire drivers. Out of pocket expenses is classed as reward and therefore not covered.

Bennifred

A bit OT maybe - but should you be admitting to doing work on the side (no matter how trivial) - there are laws about that too!:p

Chippy_Minton_2

Lemonade_Pockets wrote: »

Which is bizaree since i think they could of given you 3 points and £60 for not wearing a seatbelt.

No points just £60-00

Fixed penaltiles are what they say fixed and no insurance is £200 and 6 points. The OP has the option to have the matter heard in court.

Lemonade_Pockets

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

Out of pocket expenses is classed as reward and therefore not covered.

How so?
Does that mean everytime you split a fuel bill between mates your driving for reward?

Not saying your wrong as i don't know any different but i find it surprising.

dacouch

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

You have raised two separate issues here.

The police can check whether the OP was covered for business use. He wasn't so therefore the ticket was issued.

They can also check if the OP was covered for hire or reward. I would doubt he wasn't most people aren't unless they are private hire drivers. Out of pocket expenses is classed as reward and therefore not covered.

Hire and Reward is where you are carrying passengers or other peoples goods, carrying his own tools is not hire and reward. In a normal car he would need "Class One" business use which covers the policy holder to drive for "Social, Domestic and Pleasure Purposes and in Connection with his own business"