Speeding fine advice request

TooManyPoints

Sorry that my thread seems to have caused such upset.

No need for apologies. Your thread has not caused any upset - one or two rather irresponsible answers have. Those of us who know what we're talking about feel obliged to point out obviously bad advice.

Did you establish the answers to my two questions in my post of 2nd March at 2:52pm?

Baldytyke88

RandomTourist said:

You are very lucky. Occasionally there will be admin errors where a document falls down the back of a filing cabinet.

It was a police admin error, which saw the police asking if I was driving xxy, when in fact that was not the number in the photo.

The police did not follow it up, they either didnt want to call my bluff or they had another look at the photo, that was really blurred.

They just guess at what the reg number was and got it wrong, not very professional.

sheramber

Baldytyke88 said:

RandomTourist said:

You are very lucky. Occasionally there will be admin errors where a document falls down the back of a filing cabinet.

It was a police admin error, which saw the police asking if I was driving xxy, when in fact that was not the number in the photo.

The police did not follow it up, they either didnt want to call my bluff or they had another look at the photo, that was really blurred.

They just guess at what the reg number was and got it wrong, not very professional.

So nothing like the situation the OP  is concerned with. 

Okell

sheramber said:

Baldytyke88 said:

RandomTourist said:

You are very lucky. Occasionally there will be admin errors where a document falls down the back of a filing cabinet.

It was a police admin error, which saw the police asking if I was driving xxy, when in fact that was not the number in the photo.

The police did not follow it up, they either didnt want to call my bluff or they had another look at the photo, that was really blurred.

They just guess at what the reg number was and got it wrong, not very professional.

So nothing like the situation the OP  is concerned with. 

You beat me to it!

Simple number mis-read.  Nothing like the OP's situation at all...

(If you've read his last thread about his employer making him do an in-house speed awareness course after already doing a NDORS one. you'll know he doesn't really have a grasp of how any of this works)

TooManyPoints

"The reality is that a prosecution cannot possibly succeed without evidence that the letter was received."

Would you like to explain why you believe that is correct (with something to support it beyond mentioning "natural justice").

I have demonstrated, quoting the appropriate legislation that it is not correct. What you are posting is not an "opposing view". It is simply incorrect and misleading information which will cost anyone believing it a shedload of aggravation and money. The law governing this issue is not subject to a view or an opinion. It is simple fact

You are derailing the thread with this nonsense and it is confusing the OP. I'm sure there are plenty of places where your twaddle will be welcome. But this is a serious site where people want reliable advice, so I suggest this is not one of them.

Okell

Risteard said:

TooManyPoints said:

"The reality is that a prosecution cannot possibly succeed without evidence that the letter was received."

Would you like to explain why you believe that is correct (with something to support it beyond mentioning "natural justice").

I have demonstrated, quoting the appropriate legislation that it is not correct. What you are posting is not an "opposing view". It is simply incorrect and misleading information which will cost anyone believing it a shedload of aggravation and money. The law governing this issue is not subject to a view or an opinion. It is simple fact

You are derailing the thread with this nonsense and it is confusing the OP. I'm sure there are plenty of places where your twaddle will be welcome. But this is a serious site where people want reliable advice, so I suggest this is not one of them.

It's simple logic. You explain to me how it could be possible to prove that the letter wasn't received were the burden of proof on the non-recipient. Bootlicking Peelers isn't cool.

You might want to acquaint both yourself and your simple logic with s7 of the Interpretation Act 1978:

"7 References to service by post.

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."  [My bold for emphasis]

What that means is that so long as the police can provide evidence that the notice/s172 request was correctly sent out, then it is legally presumed to have been delivered, unless the addressee can prove otherwise.  That means that it is up to the addressee to prove that it was not delivered, not up to the police to prove that it was.

Do you understand?

Risteard

Okell said:

Risteard said:

TooManyPoints said:

"The reality is that a prosecution cannot possibly succeed without evidence that the letter was received."

Would you like to explain why you believe that is correct (with something to support it beyond mentioning "natural justice").

I have demonstrated, quoting the appropriate legislation that it is not correct. What you are posting is not an "opposing view". It is simply incorrect and misleading information which will cost anyone believing it a shedload of aggravation and money. The law governing this issue is not subject to a view or an opinion. It is simple fact

You are derailing the thread with this nonsense and it is confusing the OP. I'm sure there are plenty of places where your twaddle will be welcome. But this is a serious site where people want reliable advice, so I suggest this is not one of them.

It's simple logic. You explain to me how it could be possible to prove that the letter wasn't received were the burden of proof on the non-recipient. Bootlicking Peelers isn't cool.

You might want to acquaint both yourself and your simple logic with s7 of the Interpretation Act 1978:

"7 References to service by post.

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."  [My bold for emphasis]

What that means is that so long as the police can provide evidence that the notice/s172 request was correctly sent out, then it is legally presumed to have been delivered, unless the addressee can prove otherwise.  That means that it is up to the addressee to prove that it was not delivered, not up to the police to prove that it was.

Do you understand?

You never answered how it could be possible to prove that it wasn't received. Therefore this so-called "legislation" is null and void. It is unlawful.

Car_54

The above exchange is interesting  (FWIW Okell is right), but misses the point.

A NIP was sent and received by the OP, which satisfied the requirement of the Road Traffic Offenders Act.

There is no need for any further NIP to be sent. It does not matter whether such  a NIP (and/or s172 request)  was sent or received, and that does not have to be proved by anyone..

What does matters is whether the OP's husband replied to this disputed communication, nominating himself as the driver, If he did, that can easily be proved, and the onus is on the prosecution to do so..

If he did not, he cannot be convicted.

Aretnap

Risteard said:

Okell said:

Risteard said:

TooManyPoints said:

"The reality is that a prosecution cannot possibly succeed without evidence that the letter was received."

Would you like to explain why you believe that is correct (with something to support it beyond mentioning "natural justice").

I have demonstrated, quoting the appropriate legislation that it is not correct. What you are posting is not an "opposing view". It is simply incorrect and misleading information which will cost anyone believing it a shedload of aggravation and money. The law governing this issue is not subject to a view or an opinion. It is simple fact

You are derailing the thread with this nonsense and it is confusing the OP. I'm sure there are plenty of places where your twaddle will be welcome. But this is a serious site where people want reliable advice, so I suggest this is not one of them.

It's simple logic. You explain to me how it could be possible to prove that the letter wasn't received were the burden of proof on the non-recipient. Bootlicking Peelers isn't cool.

You might want to acquaint both yourself and your simple logic with s7 of the Interpretation Act 1978:

"7 References to service by post.

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."  [My bold for emphasis]

What that means is that so long as the police can provide evidence that the notice/s172 request was correctly sent out, then it is legally presumed to have been delivered, unless the addressee can prove otherwise.  That means that it is up to the addressee to prove that it was not delivered, not up to the police to prove that it was.

Do you understand?

You never answered how it could be possible to prove that it wasn't received. Therefore this so-called "legislation" is null and void. It is unlawful.

Not only is it impossible for primary legislation to be "null and void" or "unlawful", it's also irrelevant to the situation the OP's husband is apparently in. 

You are just yelling at clouds now.

LightFlare

Surprised we haven’t had the “he wasn’t driving, he was travelling” yet