Points on license- bizarre situation.

subbysmith

Flight3287462 said:

So at the time of the alleged offence you were driving the hire car?  Or were the points given for the date of the accident? Did the police attend.

Your OP goes back Nov 2020, so your insurance would have been renewed at least once in the intervening period.

So what is the accurate time line (to the best of your knowledge).

I'm just struggling to fit the whole picture together.

The car crash was on the 25th and the police did attend the accident, but I definitely had insurance with Tesco bank at the time.

I had the hire car from the 25th to the 5th December. The date of the offence is the 29th November.

My insurance was renewed in April with a different insurer, but without me declaring the points on the license as I didn't know anything about them. When we have come to renew this year, the insurance have asked about the license as they can see there is something on it. It's at this point that I looked up the details of my license and found the offence that I knew nothing about.

DB1904

ontheroad1970 said:

It could be something that is meant for someone else being applied to your licence in error.  The £120 fine is way way way too low, and could only possibly have been applied by a court with someone present, as the minimum starting point fine would be way above this, as the fine is unlimited in court, and the fixed penalty is £300 so they would fine more than this in an unattended hearing.

How can you say that without knowing the weekly wage?

Car_54

DB1904 said:

ontheroad1970 said:

It could be something that is meant for someone else being applied to your licence in error.  The £120 fine is way way way too low, and could only possibly have been applied by a court with someone present, as the minimum starting point fine would be way above this, as the fine is unlimited in court, and the fixed penalty is £300 so they would fine more than this in an unattended hearing.

How can you say that without knowing the weekly wage?

But the OP didn't know about the hearing, so the court could not know the wage either. In any event, if the OP was unaware and hadn't replied to an s172 request, there would be no evidence identifying the driver and so no conviction possible.

I agree it seems like this has been applied to the Op's licence in error.

subbysmith

Car_54 said:

DB1904 said:

ontheroad1970 said:

It could be something that is meant for someone else being applied to your licence in error.  The £120 fine is way way way too low, and could only possibly have been applied by a court with someone present, as the minimum starting point fine would be way above this, as the fine is unlimited in court, and the fixed penalty is £300 so they would fine more than this in an unattended hearing.

How can you say that without knowing the weekly wage?

But the OP didn't know about the hearing, so the court could not know the wage either. In any event, if the OP was unaware and hadn't replied to an s172 request, there would be no evidence identifying the driver and so no conviction possible.

I agree it seems like this has been applied to the Op's licence in error.

I certainly hope so!

DB1904

Car_54 said:

DB1904 said:

ontheroad1970 said:

It could be something that is meant for someone else being applied to your licence in error.  The £120 fine is way way way too low, and could only possibly have been applied by a court with someone present, as the minimum starting point fine would be way above this, as the fine is unlimited in court, and the fixed penalty is £300 so they would fine more than this in an unattended hearing.

How can you say that without knowing the weekly wage?

But the OP didn't know about the hearing, so the court could not know the wage either. In any event, if the OP was unaware and hadn't replied to an s172 request, there would be no evidence identifying the driver and so no conviction possible.

I agree it seems like this has been applied to the Op's licence in error.

Who said they did know? Surely you can work out that a low end no insurance offence with 75% of your weekly wage being £125, the fine is not too low. Even mercedesdriver can work out his post was wrong. 

DB1904

subbysmith said:

Car_54 said:

DB1904 said:

ontheroad1970 said:

It could be something that is meant for someone else being applied to your licence in error.  The £120 fine is way way way too low, and could only possibly have been applied by a court with someone present, as the minimum starting point fine would be way above this, as the fine is unlimited in court, and the fixed penalty is £300 so they would fine more than this in an unattended hearing.

How can you say that without knowing the weekly wage?

But the OP didn't know about the hearing, so the court could not know the wage either. In any event, if the OP was unaware and hadn't replied to an s172 request, there would be no evidence identifying the driver and so no conviction possible.

I agree it seems like this has been applied to the Op's licence in error.

I certainly hope so!

Even if it is you, there appears to have been an error. You need to get onto this ASAP as the clock is ticking for your statutory declaration. 

TooManyPoints

Most convictions come from a stop or accident but I'd welcome your opinion on why a stop must happen. 

If the driver was not stopped at the time (or was involved in an accident where details were exchanged) the very least that would be required is for a s172 "Request for driver's details" to be served on the Registered Keeper as the police do not know who was driving. If that request mas made (to the hire company) a new s172 request must then be served on the person they nominate. Until that request is responded to by the driver no conviction can take place as there is no evidence of who was driving.

A fine of £120 is the amount that would be imposed if a defendant was convicted following a guilty plea and whose income was stated at the benefit level. In addition to this there would be costs and a Victim Surcharge (£85 + £34). If a defendant is convicted in his absence and no information regarding his means is available the fine would be £440 for a guilty plea and £660 when no plea or a not guilty plea is entered.

There certainly seems something very awry with this. Even if he was driving without insurance the police have no evidence that he was and if he was convicted in absence he should have been fined at the higher rates I outlined above.

The first thing you must do, subbysmith, is to find out which court this conviction stems from and approach that court to make a Statutory Declaration. If you don't know which court it was I would suggest you begin with the court nearest to the location where the offence is said to have been committed. You may also try approaching the car hire company to see if they received a s172 request and how they replied.

DB1904

TooManyPoints said:

Most convictions come from a stop or accident but I'd welcome your opinion on why a stop must happen. 

If the driver was not stopped at the time (or was involved in an accident where details were exchanged) the very least that would be required is for a s172 "Request for driver's details" to be served on the Registered Keeper as the police do not know who was driving. If that request mas made (to the hire company) a new s172 request must then be served on the person they nominate. Until that request is responded to by the driver no conviction can take place as there is no evidence of who was driving.

A fine of £120 is the amount that would be imposed if a defendant was convicted following a guilty plea and whose income was stated at the benefit level. In addition to this there would be costs and a Victim Surcharge (£85 + £34). If a defendant is convicted in his absence and no information regarding his means is available the fine would be £440 for a guilty plea and £660 when no plea or a not guilty plea is entered.

There certainly seems something very awry with this. Even if he was driving without insurance the police have no evidence that he was and if he was convicted in absence he should have been fined at the higher rates I outlined above.

The first thing you must do, subbysmith, is to find out which court this conviction stems from and approach that court to make a Statutory Declaration. If you don't know which court it was I would suggest you begin with the court nearest to the location where the offence is said to have been committed. You may also try approaching the car hire company to see if they received a s172 request and how they replied.

But no requirement to stop for an offence of no insurance. 

Car_54

DB1904 said:

Car_54 said:

DB1904 said:

ontheroad1970 said:

It could be something that is meant for someone else being applied to your licence in error.  The £120 fine is way way way too low, and could only possibly have been applied by a court with someone present, as the minimum starting point fine would be way above this, as the fine is unlimited in court, and the fixed penalty is £300 so they would fine more than this in an unattended hearing.

How can you say that without knowing the weekly wage?

But the OP didn't know about the hearing, so the court could not know the wage either. In any event, if the OP was unaware and hadn't replied to an s172 request, there would be no evidence identifying the driver and so no conviction possible.

I agree it seems like this has been applied to the Op's licence in error.

Who said they did know? Surely you can work out that a low end no insurance offence with 75% of your weekly wage being £125, the fine is not too low. Even mercedesdriver can work out his post was wrong. 

The court did not know the OP's weekly wage. They may have known the defendant's wage, if (as seems likely) the defendant was not the OP.

DB1904

Car_54 said:

DB1904 said:

Car_54 said:

DB1904 said:

ontheroad1970 said:

It could be something that is meant for someone else being applied to your licence in error.  The £120 fine is way way way too low, and could only possibly have been applied by a court with someone present, as the minimum starting point fine would be way above this, as the fine is unlimited in court, and the fixed penalty is £300 so they would fine more than this in an unattended hearing.

How can you say that without knowing the weekly wage?

But the OP didn't know about the hearing, so the court could not know the wage either. In any event, if the OP was unaware and hadn't replied to an s172 request, there would be no evidence identifying the driver and so no conviction possible.

I agree it seems like this has been applied to the Op's licence in error.

Who said they did know? Surely you can work out that a low end no insurance offence with 75% of your weekly wage being £125, the fine is not too low. Even mercedesdriver can work out his post was wrong. 

The court did not know the OP's weekly wage. They may have known the defendant's wage, if (as seems likely) the defendant was not the OP.

I know, but you accept it's probable the fine was £125? Whoever it was imposed upon.