Error on speeding ticket

asakusa

facade said:

asakusa said:

Good morning.
Thanks all for your replies.
They have on the notice 'A25 GODSTONE ROAD, BLETCHINGLEY' and '7567 - Site Location Code'.
The Godstone Road turns into High Street. I was photographed at the other end of the High Street, about 700m from the end of Godstone Road.  

Godstone Road is probably the location of the camera, 700m is not unreasonable for a ping.

I doubt if there is sufficient error in the location, but by all means try the suggestions.

I said the end of Godstone Road is 700m away. How can they photograph me from 3/4 of a kilometre away??
On the photo, the camera distance is 0139.8m which means it was in the High Street.

Wonka_2

Keep_pedalling said:

The recent case over on FTLA had a location on a different A road and as the guy was driving a taxi he also had proof he was nowhere near the claimed route. 

But that was in a different borough - as opposed to this which is arguing about the naming on the same road. 

A phone call to the issuing office will give an idea on whether this has any legs or not - but assuming the same/correct speed limit applies and all the signage etc is in order then opting for court could prove expensive for the OP

Wonka_2

asakusa said:

facade said:

asakusa said:

Good morning.
Thanks all for your replies.
They have on the notice 'A25 GODSTONE ROAD, BLETCHINGLEY' and '7567 - Site Location Code'.
The Godstone Road turns into High Street. I was photographed at the other end of the High Street, about 700m from the end of Godstone Road.  

Godstone Road is probably the location of the camera, 700m is not unreasonable for a ping.

I doubt if there is sufficient error in the location, but by all means try the suggestions.

I said the end of Godstone Road is 700m away. How can they photograph me from 3/4 of a kilometre away??

Have a read up on the range of the cameras used - dependent on lighting conditions/heat haze etc then 700m is well within the capabilities 

Car_54

asakusa said:

facade said:

asakusa said:

Good morning.
Thanks all for your replies.
They have on the notice 'A25 GODSTONE ROAD, BLETCHINGLEY' and '7567 - Site Location Code'.
The Godstone Road turns into High Street. I was photographed at the other end of the High Street, about 700m from the end of Godstone Road.  

Godstone Road is probably the location of the camera, 700m is not unreasonable for a ping.

I doubt if there is sufficient error in the location, but by all means try the suggestions.

I said the end of Godstone Road is 700m away. How can they photograph me from 3/4 of a kilometre away??

Most of these devices are approved for use up to 1 km (or 999 metres.).

Okell

Wonka_2 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

The recent case over on FTLA had a location on a different A road and as the guy was driving a taxi he also had proof he was nowhere near the claimed route. 

But that was in a different borough - as opposed to this which is arguing about the naming on the same road...

I think that is the point @Keep_pedalling was making...

Wonka_2 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

The recent case over on FTLA had a location on a different A road and as the guy was driving a taxi he also had proof he was nowhere near the claimed route. 

... A phone call to the issuing office will give an idea on whether this has any legs or not - but assuming the same/correct speed limit applies and all the signage etc is in order then opting for court could prove expensive for the OP

Without knowing how long ago the alleged offence was I think it would be a really bad idea to contact the ticket office unless 14 days have expired from the date of the offence.  Otherwise the OP may give them an opportunity to correct the error and issue a revised NIP.

Mildly_Miffed

700m before the change of name from High St to Godstone Rd seems to put you in Castle St, around the junction of Castle Sq?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/cUuNFgZC56P9ioHK9

There certainly isn't a 700m straight line of sight there. But there is 250m.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/sVFWohYSEB1huzPNA

I leave it for others to form their own view on how likely that is to be a 40mph zone, even without knowing about speed limit signage.

My advice, especially since you know you're bang to rights, would be to take the FPN. Because if you think you're going to win fighting this in court...

TooManyPoints

“I leave it for others to form their own view on how likely that is to be a 40mph zone, even without knowing about speed limit signage.”

There is no doubt that if you were in High Street, the road is subject to a 30mph limit. Heading west on the A25, the limit becomes 30mph just east of the junction with Rabies Heath Road. This is still in Godstone Road. It remains 30mph from there, through Bletchingley and does not revert to 40mph until west of the village, just before the A25 crosses the M23. 

Any defence you might have to the speeding charge therefore rests on a deficient NIP. 

The purpose of the NIP is to provide the Registered Keeper with details of the allegation so that he (or the driver, if it was not the RK) can recall the incident and formulate a defence if necessary. 

The pressing issue for you is to respond o the s172 “Request for Driver’s Details”. You have two options:

1.You can simply say you were the driver.  

2.You can say “can’t help because my vehicle was not at the location mentioned at the time specified.

If you take option 1, you would have great difficulty defending the speeding allegation (on the basis of a defective NIP) because by naming yourself as the driver, you have indicated that you obviously recall the incident.

If you elect option 2, unless the police decide to discontinue the matter out of “embarrassment” they will almost certainly - probably sooner rather than later - prosecute you for failing to provide the driver’s details. This offence, on conviction, carries a hefty fine, six points and an endorsement code (MS90) which will see your insurance premiums rocket for up to five years.

I think you would struggle to defend that charge. The police have photographs of your vehicle. You know where he incident occurred. You are simply basing your argument on the naming of the road (i.e. was it Godstone Road or was it High Street?). Since one leads into the other and the camera probably covered a stretch which encompassed both roads, I think you would have great difficulty convincing a court that you could not provide the information required. 

As above, you could try responding along the lines that your vehicle was not in Godstone Road at the relevant time (without telling them where it actually was) and do this after 14 days. But I don’t think the defence of a deficient NIP would work because, bearing in mind its purpose, it seems to have achieved that and I suspect that is what a court will find. 

You have to be very careful with this because if you do not provide what the police consider to be a satisfactory response they may well just go straight to a prosecution under s172. Whilst there is a way to redeem this, it is aggravation and the last thing you want is to turn £100 and 3 points into a s172 conviction. 

I notice you have posted on FTLA. I subscribe to that as well but I won’t answer on there. Let’s see what others on there think.

Mildly_Miffed

TooManyPoints said:

“I leave it for others to form their own view on how likely that is to be a 40mph zone, even without knowing about speed limit signage.”

There is no doubt that if you were in High Street, the road is subject to a 30mph limit. Heading west on the A25, the limit becomes 30mph just east of the junction with Rabies Heath Road. This is still in Godstone Road. It remains 30mph from there, through Bletchingley and does not revert to 40mph until west of the village, just before the A25 crosses the M23.

Except the OP's suggestion is that the stated location is in Godstone Road, which changes name to High St within 500m of that eastern 40mph limit. They say that they were a further 700m west, further away from the 40.

The western 40 doesn't start for another 800m west of where they state they were.

Either way, 43 is still more than 40.

TooManyPoints

Except the OP's suggestion is that the stated location is in Godstone Road, which changes name to High St within 500m of that eastern 40mph limit. They say that they were a further 700m west, further away from the 40.

I don't think there is any doubt where he actually was. I think the basis of his argument is that he was in High Street, not Godstone Road (which becomes High Street at some point) and the NIP mentions the location as the latter..

Since there seems no doubt that he did exceed the speed limit, his argument can only rest on the basis that no NIP, satisfying the requirements of s1 of the Road Traffic Offenders' Act, was issued within 14 days.

Section 1 of the RTOA says this:

(1)...a person shall not be convicted of an offence to which this section applies unless]—
......

(c)within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was— [served on him].

If he defends this in court (on the basis that no compliant NIP was served) the court will have to decide whether or not the "place" where the NIP alleges that the offence occurred was sufficiently clear for him to be able to recognise where it had happened.

I have a suspicion that they will find it was sufficient. This is especially so as he seems to know exactly where it occurred. If, under cross-examination, he is asked whether he knew where the offence took place, he can either commit perjury or respond that he did know, thus demonstrating that the NIP did its job. If  the verdict goes against him,  even with a modest income it will cost him four figures.