Got a court fine despite not receiving the letter

somethingabstract

I was driving late at night, I didn't see a camera, I got flashed. I thought nothing happened, I thought I got lucky. Turns out no such luck.

The letter didn't arrive, so I got another letter stating that I had a choice, go to court guilty, go to court innocent, and don't go to court guilty.

I wrote back saying I had not received a letter, I saw the camera flash, I was driving my mums car, she received a letter which I filled in for her and sent back, and now I receive a court request.

So then my fine goes to £184 quid. Which I am not happy about. I'm pretty sure if I send my client a letter, they don't receive it, I send them one threatening court action and they have only three options and they write back saying, yes I'll pay I didn't receive the other letter, and I go to court anyway, the judge will ask me "why have you taken this person to court. They accept their guilt and are offering to pay. You're wasting their time and the courts time".

So why doesn't it happen in this situation? I'm happy to pay the fine, but I really don't see why I should pay the court costs. Surely the burden of proof is on them to prove I received the letter.

If I send any letter and go to court I always send it recorded or special delivery so I can prove it. Why doesn't this apply for the police? And is there anything I can do about the court costs which I have now paid. I'm poor too, I really can't afford this extra bill. Because I'm self employed I doubt they will accept that.

waamo

It sounds like you filled the form your mum got and put your details on it? Did you also tell them you had filled it in?

If so they may well have taken that as you identifying yourself as the driver and dispensing with your own NIP. There would be little point in sending one to you if you had given them the information they wanted anyway.

Anyway you've paid it so that's the end of it.

AndyMc.....

So let's get this straight, you've paid the fine and sent off your licence?

If so you've accepted your guilt and there's nothing to contest.

Ectophile

eoineoin wrote: »

So why doesn't it happen in this situation? I'm happy to pay the fine, but I really don't see why I should pay the court costs. Surely the burden of proof is on them to prove I received the letter.

They only have to prove that they posted it. See Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/7 It's then up to you to prove that you didn't get it (which is usually impossible).


The big risk with sending anything signed for is that the person at the other end may refuse to sign for it. At that point, you have failed to serve the document.

macman

Assuming that you do not live with your mum, the NIP would have been sent to her address, as the registered keeper.

wgl2014

Which of the 3 choices did you go for? I guess guilty with no court appearance (SJPN)?

If you had gone to court you may have been able to argue sentencing at the level of a FPN but that opportunity sounds like it has passed.

AdrianC

macman wrote: »

Assuming that you do not live with your mum, the NIP would have been sent to her address, as the registered keeper.

It's hard to be sure, not least because it seems to contradict itself, but...

eoineoin wrote: »

I was driving late at night, I didn't see a camera, I got flashed. I thought nothing happened, I thought I got lucky. Turns out no such luck.

The letter didn't arrive, so I got another letter stating that I had a choice, go to court guilty, go to court innocent, and don't go to court guilty.

I wrote back saying I had not received a letter, I saw the camera flash, I was driving my mums car, she received a letter which I filled in for her and sent back, and now I receive a court request.

I'm reading that as the OP was driving a car that is registered to their mother.
The mother, as RK, received an s172 request to identify the driver.
The OP filled it in to nominate himself as the driver.
The OP did not then receive their own s172, NIP, or anything until the court letter.

Car_54

The OP apparently replied to his mother's NIP, naming himself as driver. He was therefore fully aware that he would be considered for prosecution. I'd suggest that a NIP was not required in those circa.

waamo

I read it that the op filled out the details on the NIP and then told the camera partnership they had done so. It's difficult to be sure though.

A couple of points. It does say at the top of the form words to the effect of "Do not pass this form to anyone else to sign" which both the op and their mum for reasons not divulged chose to ignore.

Secondly if I have read it correctly (and I accept I may not have) then they have sent back written evidence that they were driving at the time negating the need for further paperwork.

Why a FPN wasn't given we can only guess at.

facade

The post doesn't make sense.


What should happen with a camera, is the registered keeper gets an S172 request to name the driver at the time (this is combined with the NIP)
When they unequivocally name the driver, and sign the S172, the named driver gets an S172/NIP of their own to sign, admitting to being the driver.
Then if they admit to being the driver, they get either an offer of a course, a fixed penalty offer, or court proceedings are started if the speed is too great. Failing to respond to the offer will start court proceedings. There are several letters about the court proceedings, failing to turn up/ignoring them results in a prosecution with fine, costs & points- you are found guilty in absentia.


So the OP must have confirmed he was the driver on his own S172/NIP form. Simply writing anyone's name on the original S172/NIP doesn't automatically prosecute them, otherwise Theresa May would have shedloads of speeding prosecutions.


Not unequivocally admitting to being the driver is an S172 offence, which carries 6 points, and a much bigger fine.
Maybe the Op's letter signed and dated with "it was me what done it" on was sufficient to satisfy the S172 requirement, but it isn't usually as the first S172 wasn't addressed to him.

AndyMc.....

Car_54 wrote: »

The OP apparently replied to his mother's NIP, naming himself as driver. He was therefore fully aware that he would be considered for prosecution. I'd suggest that a NIP was not required in those circa.

Whilst I understand your logic, I'm not sure it correct.