Fixed Penalty Notice - Disproportionate

thescouselander

raskazz wrote: »

I'm no expert on the legal process but reading between the lines it sounds like the OP admitted the purpose of the journey to the officer(s) involved ("On the way there I was stopped by a policeman and was completely honest with him"). I would assume that if it did end up in court the OP would find it hard to prove that the officer(s) involved were lying in their evidence to that effect.

Yes but it depends on how you spin it. As I said many posts ago you could probably add up £10 worth of out of pocket expenses for doing an afternoons gardening so all the OP needs to prove is that he was only reimbursed his costs and did not make a profit.

I'm sure with a little thought and creativity something could be worked out.

Of course he could always deny he received any money at all then it would be his word against the policeman's. Remember the law works on presumption of innocence so it the police that have to prove the OP is a gardener.

Even in cases like speeding the police usually need more proof than just the policeman's - they can act as a professional witness but there is usually photographic or video evidence to back this up.

raskazz

thescouselander wrote: »

As I said many posts ago you could probably add up £10 worth of out of pocket expenses for doing an afternoons gardening so all the OP needs to prove is that he was only reimbursed his costs and did not make a profit.

Even if he can prove this, it won't necessarily help. If the issue was one of costs for car sharing then the matter of expenses might be relevant to show that the use was not the carriage of passengers for hire and reward - but that is not the issue. There are many journeys which require business/commercial/own goods use which do not in themselves make a profit - for example, rectification work by a builder.

Claiming that he did not receive any money won't help either - the appointment was made and a contract agreed regardless of whether the other party's consideration was subsequently paid. The purpose of the journey was still for business.

The only thing which might persuade me that the journey was not for business purposes would be if the OP was doing the work for a friend/relative. However, as the OP worded it as 'a job on the side' I strongly suspect that that is not the case.

In terms of the evidential value of the police officer's account, I wouldn't think that one can draw parallels with speeding cases. Clearly exceeding the speed limit is not something which can be quantified with the naked eye - hence the need for photographs etc.

dacouch

Goldspanners your story does not surprise me as call centre staff can often not understand their own Insurance Policy and how Insurance works. Its lucky your an ardent MSEr and had the sense to keep a note of the call time etc.

To most Insurance companies an actaul conviction or a pending conviction are the same thing and both have to be declared. I hope the OP takes notice of this and declares the incident as otherwise he could find himself in much deeper problems if its discovered and a claim is declined and his insurance voided which makes it very very difficult to find Insurance cover for any type of Insurance

In a way their mistake saved you some money on your premium which is very MSE

thescouselander

raskazz wrote: »

E

Claiming that he did not receive any money won't help either - the appointment was made and a contract agreed regardless of whether the other party's consideration was subsequently paid. The purpose of the journey was still for business.

Yes but none of that can be proved unless the OP admits it or the police drag the old lady into court as a witness.

raskazz

thescouselander wrote: »

Yes but none of that can be proved unless the OP admits it or the police drag the old lady into court as a witness.

The OP has already admitted it though?

thescouselander

raskazz wrote: »

The OP has already admitted it though?

Where's the proof? Did the police take a statement? Apparently not. There is only the policeman's account of the incident which may not be sufficient proof for the court or the CPS.

raskazz

thescouselander wrote: »

Where's the proof? Did the police take a statement? Apparently not. There is only the policeman's account of the incident which may not be sufficient proof for the court or the CPS.

Well, like I said, I'm no expert in that area but common sense would seem to indicate that the OP will have difficulty in persuading a courtroom that the police officer's evidence is not genuine.

thescouselander

raskazz wrote: »

Well, like I said, I'm no expert in that area but common sense would seem to indicate that the OP will have difficulty in persuading a courtroom that the police officer's evidence is not genuine.

I am not a legal expert either but from what I have learnt from others the burden of proof on the CPS/Police is quite high and a policeman's word on its own is not always enough for the CPS to pursue a prosecution.

Obviously there are no guarantees but I would expect it is at least worth the OP getting proper legal advice from a good motoring defence lawyer to see if there are reasonable prospects of a defence being mounted.

Also it might be that the legal costs could be covered by after the event legal expenses insurance if the OP is put off by the costs. It would be pricey but could be worth it.

vaio

raskazz wrote: »

…….. I would congratulate the officer for being one of the few who actually seem to understand the law relating to motor insurance!

Given this understanding of the law would it not be incumbent on the officer to prevent the continuation of the offence by impounding the car?

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

Given this understanding of the law would it not be incumbent on the officer to prevent the continuation of the offence by impounding the car?

No, because the car was insured, albeit not for the use for which it was being put to at the time, so the police would not have been entitled to impound it. I presume the officer told the OP to turn round and go home.