DVLA fine from ANPR camera - wasn't me, cloned plates. Please help

Car_54

I've just re-read the whole thread, and it seems the only details of the offence have come from the bailiff. I don't believe he would have had any such information about the offence, and in any event he is hardly likely to be a reliable source.

I suspect the offence was under the continuous insurance regs, where the OP had failed to SORN the vehicle. No ANPR necessary.

littlerock

This is what other posters are suggesting. OP seems to be saying it was caught on a roadside camera when, so far as he was concerned, it was parked in an undrivable condition, (flat battery and tyres) in a private car park. So either someone made it driveable and was driving it, or as he suggests, they cloned the plates. If the latter, surely it should be relatively easy to demonstrate from the camera photo, that it was not his car, unless it was an identical make year and colour, with him driving!

Rover_Driver

That is why the OP needs to establish the actual offence and date of the offence.

Although the OP disposed of the car as scrap, it may well have been repaired and legally back on the road, and the offence was when he was still the keeper.

AndyMc.....

Rover_Driver wrote: »

That is why the OP needs to establish the actual offence and date of the offence.

Although the OP disposed of the car as scrap, it may well have been repaired and legally back on the road, and the offence was when he was still the keeper.

It's got to be under the continuous insurance rules or else how have they got the OP named as the driver?

Car_54

AndyMc..... wrote: »

It's got to be under the continuous insurance rules or else how have they got the OP named as the driver?

Exactly. ANPR is a red herring. It came come from the bailiff, who couldn't possibly know.

It seems the idea that the DVLA initiated the prosecution came from the bailiff as well ....

AndyMc.....

Car_54 wrote: »

Exactly. ANPR is a red herring. It came come from the bailiff, who couldn't possibly know.

It seems the idea that the DVLA initiated the prosecution came from the bailiff as well ....

Given the op knew nothing about it then that parts probably true.

Car_54

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Given the op knew nothing about it then that parts probably true.

True that it came from the bailiff!

The only firm facts seem to be the conviction date, the court, and the amount of the fine.

Everything else is speculation based on what the bailiff said, and their reputation is not one of a scrupulous regard for the truth.

AndyMc.....

Car_54 wrote: »

True that it came from the bailiff!

The only firm facts seem to be the conviction date, the court, and the amount of the fine.

Everything else is speculation based on what the bailiff said, and their reputation is not one of a scrupulous regard for the truth.

Well as it's wasn't a police prosecution who else other than the DVLA would it be?

Car_54

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Well as it's wasn't a police prosecution who else other than the DVLA would it be?

The OP said "The police say its nothing to do with them as its a straight fine from the DVLA and said this has happened a lot with these cameras. They also said its a civil matter and could be a long drawn out one."

How confident are you that the police person knew what he was talking about?

From the info we have so far, it coud be the RSPCA!

AndyMc.....

Car_54 wrote: »

The OP said "The police say its nothing to do with them as its a straight fine from the DVLA and said this has happened a lot with these cameras. They also said its a civil matter and could be a long drawn out one."

How confident are you that the police person knew what he was talking about?

From the info we have so far, it coud be the RSPCA!

Well if they did a #DL on the PNC and the OP has no convictions it's not a police generated conviction.