Fixed Penaly Notice - should I go to court?

zeon999

As much as I hate to see un-road worthy cars on the road and owners driving vehicles around without any regard to weather they are safe or not this is just beyond a joke how the police deal with such things.

To threaten and bully a newly passed driver for having un-road worthy tyres just about sums up the police these days, instead of advising about the dangers of it for your first ever motoring offense. Where your clearly worked up already and hit a pot hole.

Perhaps if the government would take care of the roads better people using the roads would have cars in better condition, we pay all these taxes as motorists yet they are unable to keep the road in good working condition. Everywhere you go these days there is massive potholes wrecking drivers tyres, wheels and suspension. Excessive traffic jams here there and everywhere.

If it were me I would just take the 3 points and a fine and be well annoyed about it. I just cant see you winning, after all you had 2 unroad worth tyres on the vehicle, so worst case you may even get done for both of these when you go court maybe? Dunno if it works like that.

Jamie_Carter

zeon999 wrote: »

As much as I hate to see un-road worthy cars on the road and owners driving vehicles around without any regard to weather they are safe or not this is just beyond a joke how the police deal with such things.

To threaten and bully a newly passed driver for having un-road worthy tyres just about sums up the police these days, instead of advising about the dangers of it for your first ever motoring offense. Where your clearly worked up already and hit a pot hole.

Perhaps if the government would take care of the roads better people using the roads would have cars in better condition, we pay all these taxes as motorists yet they are unable to keep the road in good working condition. Everywhere you go these days there is massive potholes wrecking drivers tyres, wheels and suspension. Excessive traffic jams here there and everywhere.

If it were me I would just take the 3 points and a fine and be well annoyed about it. I just cant see you winning, after all you had 2 unroad worth tyres on the vehicle, so worst case you may even get done for both of these when you go court maybe? Dunno if it works like that.

We all hate the pot holes in the roads, and I can only see the situation getting worse with public sector cut backs.

A car is a lethal weapon in the wrong hands, or if it isn't maintained properly. How would you feel if the police only gave out warnings, and then a child was killed?

Ultrasonic

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

If there is a pot hole big enough to cause damage to two tyres, then the OP should have seen it. So even if they hadn't had a chance to avoid it, they would know what they hit. Otherwise they are driving without due care and attention.

I could certainly see this argument being made in court, which would be another reason for the OP to be careful about choosing to go down that route.

Jamie_Carter

Ultrasonic wrote: »

I could certainly see this argument being made in court, which would be another reason for the OP to be careful about choosing to go down that route.

I personally don't think the OP has a chance of winning in court. But they do have the chance of the penalty being increased.

So my personal view is that they should accept the fine/points, take it on the chin, and regard it as an expensive learning exercise. After all I'm sure they won't do it again.

Paradigm

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I personally don't think the OP has a chance of winning in court. But they do have the chance of the penalty being increased.

So my personal view is that they should accept the fine/points, take it on the chin, and regard it as an expensive learning exercise. After all I'm sure they won't do it again.

Ok let's sum up....

The OP started the journey with legal tyres (nothing to say otherwise) & during the journey struck a pothole or other object causing damage to the front & (possibly) rear tyres. Not realising that damage had occured, the OP drove on (I certainly don't inspect my tyres everytime I hit a pothole)

As soon as they were aware of something wrong they pulled over, turned hazards on, when it was safe to do so (as advised in the Highway code)

The police turned up some minutes later & issued a FPN for the rear tyre which had developed an "egg" as a result of the impact. The OP has in writing from an independant tyre specialist (OPs own words) that this is the likely cause.

The OP wasn't driving at the time the FPN was issued, they were already stopped.

Pretty much a case of an occifer being an over zealous bullying tit in my book.

What's not to defend?

Joe_Horner

On the face of it I'd agree, Paradigm, but it's not quite that simple. Much would depend on how the prosecution presented their case, how the OP presented his defence, and what he may have said to the police at the time.

He's guilty regardless because it's an absolute offence, so pleading not guilty would be pointless unless he can convince the court that the flat tyre and the egg suddenly developed after he stopped. But he can't do that if he's going to rely on the earlier impact to mitigate sentence.

On a guilty plea he could raise a defence against endorsement that he had no reasonable cause to think there was damage - there wasn't any before he set off and he didnt believe the impact was enough to cause damage until the car started feeling wrong, at which point he pulled over. Note that to use this defence the burden is on him to prove that he couldn't reasonably have suspected the damage, not for the prosecution to prove that he could.

It would then be for the Court to decide whether or not it was reasonable for him to dismiss an impact that was bad enough to cause the damage without checking at the earliest possible opportunity.

If the impact was such that a reasonable person might have expected it to cause damage then that opportunity would have been the layby that he drove past according to what he's said here.

If he gave a similar account to the Police at the time then the prosecution could argue that he had fair reason to believe damage might have occurred (an impact big enough to have done it) but carried on regardless, past a safe stopping point, until it became actually dangerous to continue.

It's one of those (many) cases where internet advice is not enough to decide (sensibly) whether or not to contest it - there may be a defence against endorsement but it really needs a solicitor's advice on whether it's worth trying for it.

Paradigm

Joe_Horner wrote: »

It's one of those (many) cases where internet advice is not enough to decide (sensibly) whether or not to contest it - there may be a defence against endorsement but it really needs a solicitor's advice on whether it's worth trying for it.

I won't quote all your post to keep things short(er) but in the main I agree with much you have said.

The above just about covers it & as we weren't there the finer details are always going to be lacking.

Just going on what I read I would be going for a hearing.

If this isn't worth defending then every HGV driver whos truck "strips" a tyre (every m/way has the debris) is up for a FPN & that can't be right!

I stand by the "over zealous bullying tit" comment

Joe_Horner

Paradigm wrote: »

I stand by the "over zealous bullying tit" comment

Absolutely agree with that - especially seeing as he was happy for the OP to continue on the damaged rear tyre, so it's unlikely to have been a big bulge!

goomba

Hi, sorry to bump this thread up... but I appealed this fixed penalty notice and have heard nothing back from either the police or the courts since then. Is it likely they've forgotten about it or decided not to pursue it? Would anyone know if there is a time limit for them to get this sorted? Thanks.

Mark_Mark

goomba wrote: »

Hi, sorry to bump this thread up... but I appealed this fixed penalty notice and have heard nothing back from either the police or the courts since then. Is it likely they've forgotten about it or decided not to pursue it? Would anyone know if there is a time limit for them to get this sorted? Thanks.

They have six months to lay the information for a summons before the court, unless you've moved looks like you got away with this one.