Police court notice over speeding fine which I paid

Jenni_D

I agree completely, and wasn't (trying to) say any different.

TooManyPoints

“No I did not and its not required to get a certifiacate of service…”

You’re quite right, it’s not. But when something like this happens it’s handy to have a Certificate of Posting. As above, it doesn’t prove what you posted, but it adds weight to your argument that you posted what was required.

You need to resolve this without getting bogged down with suing the police for interest on a hundred quid for three months or conflating this minor issue with the Horizon scandal (especially as the police played no part in those prosecutions). You have two alternatives.

You can respond to the SJPN by pleading guilty and respectfully requesting that the court sentences you at the fixed penalty level (£100 and 3 points). They don’t have to but they have guidance which suggest they should in your circumstances:

“Where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances.”

The second option is to plead not guilty on the basis that you have complied with the terms of the fixed penalty offer by paying the penalty and submitting your driving licence details. This is the more difficult of the two because you will have to convince he court that you did indeed submit your details. That’s why it would have been useful to obtain a certificate of posting. Although it won’t prove what was in the envelope, it will prove you posted something to the correct address and the court would have to suspect you either sent an empty envelope or you sent something which did not contain the required details. Without that you would have rely on your own testimony. 

There would be no “mini trial” involved. You would face a trial where the police would have to prove you committed a speeding offence (which would probably not be too difficult) and you would have to counter that by showing that you complied with the fixed penalty offer and so no prosecution can succeed. 

This would not be so straightforward for you and in your position I would go for the first option.

Jenni_D

TooManyPoints said:

You should note that you 

Did you post before completing?

TooManyPoints

Thanks Jenni.

No, that shouldn't be there. Edited,

Thanks again.

Jenni_D

It's still showing for me 🤷‍♀️

TooManyPoints

I've tried again Jenni. Must have been a "senior moment" !   

Thanks again.

TMP

Joey122

TooManyPoints said:

“No I did not and its not required to get a certifiacate of service…”

You’re quite right, it’s not. But when something like this happens it’s handy to have a Certificate of Posting. As above, it doesn’t prove what you posted, but it adds weight to your argument that you posted what was required.

You need to resolve this without getting bogged down with suing the police for interest on a hundred quid for three months or conflating this minor issue with the Horizon scandal (especially as the police played no part in those prosecutions). You have two alternatives.

You can respond to the SJPN by pleading guilty and respectfully requesting that the court sentences you at the fixed penalty level (£100 and 3 points). They don’t have to but they have guidance which suggest they should in your circumstances:

“Where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances.”

The second option is to plead not guilty on the basis that you have complied with the terms of the fixed penalty offer by paying the penalty and submitting your driving licence details. This is the more difficult of the two because you will have to convince he court that you did indeed submit your details. That’s why it would have been useful to obtain a certificate of posting. Although it won’t prove what was in the envelope, it will prove you posted something to the correct address and the court would have to suspect you either sent an empty envelope or you sent something which did not contain the required details. Without that you would have rely on your own testimony. 

There would be no “mini trial” involved. You would face a trial where the police would have to prove you committed a speeding offence (which would probably not be too difficult) and you would have to counter that by showing that you complied with the fixed penalty offer and so no prosecution can succeed. 

This would not be so straightforward for you and in your position I would go for the first option.

Thanks all very useful information 

I want to stress that I do not undesratd why the fact that a letter goes missing implies the defendant did not post it instead of the possibility of a) It really did get lost in the post b) It was lost whilst being sorted when received in the southen drivier endorsement office.  Both of these are probable.

What is not probable is people complete the NIP, pay the fine and then dont send the driver license given they already know who you are and the fact that the driver licese was already provided 

Finally ust today on the guardian webiste I have heard that the SJP system has been used by train companies to prosecute fare evaders who bought a ticket with a 50 pence difference to what it should have cost.  Its things like this that make me want to issue a claim for the interest out of pure anger and to cause the police maximum time wasting 

LightFlare

“They” will have internal mechanisms in place and documented that show they have processed the documents and sent them to you.

You don’t have such mechanisms - only your say, unless anything else can be used to support

If it was that simple then no one would ever pay

The licence details firstly are required to establish what “punishments” are possible - ie, totting ban, if eligible for a course etc

Second time is to ensure that this is recorded as “satisfied” against the correct details

You might not like the system, but it is what it is and shows the importance of reading correspondence very carefully and following the instructions 

TooManyPoints

I want to stress that I do not undesratd why the fact that a letter goes missing implies the defendant did not post it…

All the police are interested in is receiving the required information. They are not interested in making implications suggesting why it was not received. If your response was either lost in the post or lost within the police system, they have no realistic alternative but to prosecute you.

When the police send you a document they enjoy the “presumption of service”. This is provided by the Interpretation Act. This says that when a document that is required by law is sent it is presumed “served” two working days after posting. All the police have to do is prove it was posted. If it was not delivered, the burden falls on the recipient to prove it. People making responses required by law also enjoy that presumption. But they have to be able to prove they posted the document and unfortunately - other than your own testimony - you cannot. If you could have, you might have taken advantage of the second option I outlined in my earlier post. 

What is not probable is people complete the NIP, pay the fine and then dont send the driver license given they already know who you are and the fact that the driver licese was already provided

It is by no means improbable. I subscribe to a number of motoring advice sites and one of the most popular problems is exactly what you describe. Drivers accept a fixed penalty offer by paying the penalty sum, but do not submit their licence details (it is only necessary to submit the details - there has been no requirement to send the actual licence since 2022). The main reason for this is that many believe they have already complied with that requirement having provided their DL details when responding to the “request for driver’s details”. Unfortunately the police must secure identification confirmation after the fixed penalty has been offered because that’s what the fixed penalty legislation demands.

If you are unfortunate enough to be on the wrong end of a speeding allegation again, it is recommended that you keep copies of any replies that you make and get a certificate of posting from the Post Office. It is also a good idea to keep tabs on how your case is progressing. Once you have responded to the request for driver’s details, if you are expecting to be offered a course or fixed penalty, that offer should be with you within four weeks at most. If it is not, make enquiries to ensure your response has been received. Similarly, as you have found out, you should also ensure your licence details have been received after accepting a fixed penalty. As an aside, you should note that if your initial response is not received for any reason,  the consequences are far more serious than the situation you are in. You will find yourself charged with "failing to provide driver's details". On conviction this carries a hefty fine, six points and an insurance crippling endorsement code. 

I know it is annoying to have to do this, but you are where you are, not where you would like to be or think you ought to be. Conflating your issue with other unrelated matters such as the Horizon scandal or train operators using the SJ procedure will not help. Parliament has determined the legislation which covers traffic matters and it is unlikely to be changed substantially. 

robatwork

eskbanker said:

Can't help wondering if there will be some Horizon equivalent of Godwin's Law, whereby gratuitous but utterly irrelevant references to it are eventually shoehorned into any thread involving courts or IT systems....

Vennells' law?

Sadly the apostrophe position would cause too much angst.