V5C to wrong address, now notice of intended prosecution

williamgriffin

George_Michael said:

waamo said:

ontheroad1970 said:

Once it gets to court and fines aren’t paid. 

When did they start hearing  minor motoring offences in the High Court? 

If it's only a minor motoring offence.
The speeding ticket could be for a speed that results in an automatic court hearing, there could also be a failure to return the S172 info. If the car has been deliberately registered at the wrong address, there may not be any insurance in place and there could also be possible fraud charges due to a false registered address.

I've no idea if any or all of the above could or will happen.
Do you?

If you're talking about this thread, as it stands highly unlikely.

waamo

williamgriffin said:

George_Michael said:

waamo said:

ontheroad1970 said:

Once it gets to court and fines aren’t paid. 

When did they start hearing  minor motoring offences in the High Court? 

If it's only a minor motoring offence.
The speeding ticket could be for a speed that results in an automatic court hearing, there could also be a failure to return the S172 info. If the car has been deliberately registered at the wrong address, there may not be any insurance in place and there could also be possible fraud charges due to a false registered address.

I've no idea if any or all of the above could or will happen.
Do you?

If you're talking about this thread, as it stands highly unlikely.

High court for any of this. Highly unlikely is an understatement. It won't. 

Dr_Crypto

None of that will happen.
S172 is a summary offence. 

waamo

Dr_Crypto said:

None of that will happen.
S172 is a summary offence. 

It's also a criminal matter. It won't go to a civil court.

Car_54

waamo said:

Dr_Crypto said:

None of that will happen.
S172 is a summary offence. 

It's also a criminal matter. It won't go to a civil court.

True. But if the criminal court imposes a fine, and that is unpaid, it can be pursued through the civil court system.

facade

This must be worrying the OP.

The reason for the advice to return it unopened marked "not known at this address" is because it is an offence under the Postal Services Act 2000 section 84 to open another person's mail

(3)A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.

However, just returning it with "not known at this address" scrawled over the envelope is unlikely to make it go away. Personally I'd open it on the grounds that it has been correctly delivered to my home, and return the form blank, securely stapled to a letter setting out that the person named in the S172 is unknown to me, has never resided at my address, and that I have never had any connection with the vehicle. It wouldn't hurt to include that a V5c was received and returned to DVLA with any dates. (keep a copy!!)

(The Postal Services Act is really there to prosecute people who deliberately open next door's post and steal the £5 out of the card or publish embarrassing contents on facebook)

I recall a couple of threads where people have said that the first thing they knew about an S172 conviction (because they moved house and "forgot" to update their licence & registration) was when a debt collector arrived chasing the unpaid fine. Presumably they had already been to the address that they had, and been turned away so they used another method to trace the culprit- like the insurance for the car.

Yes it is nothing to do with the OP and the debt collector will leave after hearing the explanation, but I'm sure it is better to try and head this off now rather than on the doorstep in 12 months time.

TooManyPoints

In England & Wales fines imposed by Magistrates' Courts are not escalated to the High Court for enforcement (and that's the only involvement the High Court might have in these circumstances unless the matter arrived there by way of a "case stated" for determination on a matter of law). The Magistrates' Court's fines office will firstly try to collect the fine but if they fail they will usually pass the matter to a debt collection agency ("ordinary" bailiffs) for enforcement. If that fails the matter will return to the court which imposed the fines for them to determine a way forward (which, ultimately will usually see a warrant issued for the arrest of the defendant).

I rang the traffic bureau which the letter said it was from and they informed me to just return the letter with unknown at this address on it.

That's not a good idea and it will not see the end of the matter (if it would everybody would do it).

How can this be so, how can someone register their vehicle to my address incorrectly and it not be taken off? And how can they commit traffic offences and the police come after my address? 

Because that's the way the DVLA works. It trusts that people will not register vehicles at false addresses. You need to engage with the police properly on this. Simply sending the notice back "not known at this address" will not do. You need to explain the situation as you have here. Did you keep a copy of the letter you sent to the DVLA? If so, send it to the police. If you do nothing the matter will become one of "Failing to Provide Driver's Details" and it will go to court. You will receive paperwork at your address (but addressed to the car owner) and if you ignore that a conviction will be recorded against him and fines, costs etc. will be imposed. Then you will have bailiffs knocking at your door and whilst they will not take action against you when you prove you are not the defendant it all gets a bit messy because they will have your address as that of the defendant. Best to nip it in the bud before all that. Keep copies of any letters you send (getting a free Certificate of Posting from the Post Office when you send them) and keep a careful note of any telephone conversations you have with anybody, recording them if you can.

Car_54

facade said:

This must be worrying the OP.

The reason for the advice to return it unopened marked "not known at this address" is because it is an offence under the Postal Services Act 2000 section 84 to open another person's mail

(3)A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.

An offence is only commited if "intending to act to a person’s detriment ...".

The OP doesn't appear to have acted (let alone intended) to anyone's detriment.

George_Michael

facade said:

This must be worrying the OP.

The reason for the advice to return it unopened marked "not known at this address" is because it is an offence under the Postal Services Act 2000 section 84 to open another person's mail

(3)A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly
delivered to him.

If all that was required for an offence to be committed was to open mail addressed to another person, a large percentage of the UK population would be leaving themselves open to prosecution simply by opening mail addressed to other household members.

With the case in question, even if acting to a persons detriment, no offence would be committed under the Postal Services act because the letter in question had not been incorrectly delivered.
When delivering to a property, Royal mail only have an obligation to deliver to the address shown on the letter or package and as the OP's correct address was shown then as far as the PSA is concerned, the letter had been correctly delivered.

facade

Car_54 said:

facade said:

This must be worrying the OP.

The reason for the advice to return it unopened marked "not known at this address" is because it is an offence under the Postal Services Act 2000 section 84 to open another person's mail

(3)A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.

An offence is only commited if "intending to act to a person’s detriment ...".

The OP doesn't appear to have acted (let alone intended) to anyone's detriment.

I didn't mention that as I couldn't make up my mind if trying to get a speeding ticket directed to the named person was acting to their detriment or not