Got a court fine despite not receiving the letter

System

AndyMc..... wrote: »

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

From the original post:

" 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."

Depending on the speed the OP was doing it may have been high enough that a FPN or Speed Awareness course wasn't an option.

Nodding_Donkey

OP, what difference would you getting another 'letter' have made?


I really don't see the issue. You admitted being the driver and were given the chance to go to court.

AndyMc.....

Tarambor wrote: »

From the original post:

" 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."

Depending on the speed the OP was doing it may have been high enough that a FPN or Speed Awareness course wasn't an option.

Nothing there removes the need for him to have his own nip.

Car_54

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Nothing there removes the need for him to have his own nip.

AIUI he does not need his own NIP: the law is satisfied by serving the NIP on the RK. However, what he does normally need is a s172 request, which appears to been short-circuited in this case.

I imagine he replied to Mum's s172 saying something like "It was me what done it, and here are my details", and the prosecutors have considered that sufficient elvidence to proceed.

TooManyPoints

He would get his own NIP and S172 notice (having filled in his Mum's one, nominating himself and presumably either forging her signature or signed it himself).. He cannot be convicted of speeding until he completes his own S172 notice. There's lots in this post that makes no sense and I'm too tired to sort the sense from the nonsense.

AndyMc.....

Car_54 wrote: »

AIUI he does not need his own NIP: the law is satisfied by serving the NIP on the RK. However, what he does normally need is a s172 request, which appears to been short-circuited in this case.

I imagine he replied to Mum's s172 saying something like "It was me what done it, and here are my details", and the prosecutors have considered that sufficient elvidence to proceed.

Doesn't he?

Technically them mums up for six points too.

wgl2014

If the OP sent in an unequivocal confession to being the guilty party in response to his mother's s172 request then why would a further request for information be required?
Whilst there would normally be a new 172 sent out following the initial response the OP seems to have jumped ahead with their reply.
Bear in mind that there is nothing to say that any response to a s172 notice has to be completed on that form.

TooManyPoints

If the OP sent in an unequivocal confession to being the guilty party in response to his mother's s172 request then why would a further request for information be required?

You cannot complete a S172 notice that is not addressed to you. If you do it should be rejected and the original addressee could potentially face a FtF charge (though they would normally re-issue the notice whilst having no obligation to do so). Imagine this scenario. I get a S172 notice sent to me and I complete it nominating A N Other (my son, say) as the driver. Are you suggesting that my son can then be convicted of speeding based on my nomination? That is exactly what has happened here except that the OP has intercepted the notice and completed it, nominating himself. The ticket office do not know this and should assume that a person other than the addressee has completed the return. The only evidence that would be admissable to support a speeding allegation is a S172 notice addressed to te nominated driver, duly completed by him.