Speeding fine help please

Hhzg71

Thank you everyone for all your help. I’ve posted on that site recommended, so I’ll let you know what they say

TooManyPoints

If they have proof of posting the nip, 172, any reminders, and the sjp pack it'll be down to the op to convince the court they never arrived.

Not when she performs her Statutory Declaration, it won't. Nor, for that matter is it likely to be necessary if and when the speeding charge is resurrected, but that can wait.

Have you had any involvement with somebody performing an SD and do you know the procedure? It is not an inquisitorial process. The court (or solicitor) is simply witnessing the applicant's declaration. Nobody involved in prosecuting the original offence (who may know what was posted and what was not) is likely to be present (particularly if the declaration is made at a solicitors of the applicant's choosing).

The OP here is facing a situation where she is worried and wants advice. She's been told what she needs to do and you are unnecessarily introducing further worries for her which she can do without.

You don't know what she intends to do if and when the matter is resurrected (especially as she seems to accept she committed the offence). There is advice she needs later about securing the best outcome in future proceedings but for the moment she needs to get the matter reset so that she can deal with it properly. If she had taken your initial advice she would have simply contacted the court to sort out paying the £335 demanded.

I don't normally get involved in personal spats on advice forums but you really do seem to want to create an argument where none exists! Is it just me you don't believe or do you argue unjustifiably with everybody?

a.turner

TooManyPoints wrote: »

Not when she performs her Statutory Declaration, it won't. Nor, for that matter is it likely to be necessary if and when the speeding charge is resurrected, but that can wait.

Have you had any involvement with somebody performing an SD and do you know the procedure? It is not an inquisitorial process. The court (or solicitor) is simply witnessing the applicant's declaration. Nobody involved in prosecuting the original offence (who may know what was posted and what was not) is likely to be present (particularly if the declaration is made at a solicitors of the applicant's choosing).

The OP here is facing a situation where she is worried and wants advice. She's been told what she needs to do and you are unnecessarily introducing further worries for her which she can do without.

I don't normally get involved in personal spats on advice forums but you really do seem to want to create an argument where none exists! Is it just me you don't believe or do you argue unjustifiably with everybody?

Care to share your experience to put the OPs mind at rest?

You claim to know everything and have been wrong twice today.

TooManyPoints

Care to share your experience to put the OPs mind at rest?

You claim to know everything and have been wrong twice today.

I don't claim to know everything and I don't care to share my experience. Suffice it to say I know what the process involves for performing an SD and it involves no inquisition as you suggest.

I'm not getting involved in the MoT debate. It rests on the meaning of "using" a vehicle for which there is case law. Look it up and you'll see what the position is. What was the second occasion I have been wrong today?

Quentin

TooManyPoints wrote: »

....... What was the second occasion I have been wrong today?

You wrongly informed a worried poster about the maximum costs he faced in the mags court

Is there a prize for being the only poster prepared to jog your memory?

Why post incorrect info in such authoritative/holier than thou manner .

You will always be corrected by someone, but not fair on the newbies who just wanted helping

a.turner

TooManyPoints wrote: »

I don't claim to know everything and I don't care to share my experience. Suffice it to say I know what the process involves for performing an SD and it involves no inquisition as you suggest.

I'm not getting involved in the MoT debate. It rests on the meaning of "using" a vehicle for which there is case law. Look it up and you'll see what the position is. What was the second occasion I have been wrong today?

So you have no actual experience. :rotfl:

a.turner

Quentin wrote: »

You wrongly informed a worried poster about the maximum costs he faced in the mags court

Is there a prize for being the only poster prepared to jog your memory?

Why post incorrect info in such authoritative/holier than thou manner .

You will always be corrected by someone, but not fair on the newbies who just wanted helping

That's three times then.

Joe_Horner

a.turner wrote: »

Care to share your experience to put the OPs mind at rest?

You claim to know everything and have been wrong twice today.

Regardless of any other posts (and case law on "using" is ambiguous - it's ended up defined differently for purposes of tax, insurance and MOT), toomanypoints is absolutely right about the statutory declaration.

You're effectively making a statement to the court, under oath, that you didn't receive notification. Since lying to a court under oath is a criminal offence in itself, that statement is accepted as fact by the court unless someone can prove that you're committing perjury.

They won't be able to do that, so the statement is accepted as fact and is an effective rebuttal of any proof they may offer of posting it. "What the court believes" doesn't come into it, it's a simple and clear matter of law - a stat dec is accepted unless someone can prove it's false.

TooManyPoints

So you have no actual experience

I have been present in a Magistrates' Court on probably three or four dozen occasions (maybe more) when a Statutory Declaration has been made (most usually in connection with motoring matters). I'll leave it at that. You can believe me if you like or not. I would just suggest that it is not wise to offer advice which may cause a poster additional stress

You wrongly informed a worried poster about the maximum costs he faced in the mags court.

I don't think so. I said this:

If you are found guilty at trial the prosecution will ask for costs and these run up to a maximum of £620 for a Magistrates' Court trial.

That was then disputed, suggesting that sum was a "guideline Starting Point". I provided a link to the CPS website showing that £620 was the normal maximum for a straightforward trial in the Magistrates’ Court. If anything was misleading it was the suggestion that the sum was merely a starting point. The poster on that occasion was involved in a decision on how to plead. It was necessary for him to know what he was risking in pleading Not Guilty.

This really needs to stop because it is getting silly. This forum is supposed to help people with their problems but if they are given misleading information it does not help them one jot. The OP of this thread has now gone away to Pepipoo where hopefully she will not be subject to any more misleading advice from anybody.

a.turner

TooManyPoints wrote: »

I have been present in a Magistrates' Court on probably three or four dozen occasions (maybe more) when a Statutory Declaration has been made (most usually in connection with motoring matters). I'll leave it at that. You can believe me if you like or not. I would just suggest that it is not wise to offer advice which may cause a poster additional stress



I don't think so. I said this:



That was then disputed, suggesting that sum was a "guideline Starting Point". I provided a link to the CPS website showing that £620 was the normal maximum for a straightforward trial in the Magistrates’ Court. If anything was misleading it was the suggestion that the sum was merely a starting point. The poster on that occasion was involved in a decision on how to plead. It was necessary for him to know what he was risking in pleading Not Guilty.

This really needs to stop because it is getting silly. This forum is supposed to help people with their problems but if they are given misleading information it does not help them one jot. The OP of this thread has now gone away to Pepipoo where hopefully she will not be subject to any more misleading advice from anybody.

Meanwhile you continue to do it on other threads, you're unqualified and uneducated legal advice doesn't help.