. If you have not been asked to attend, how did you come to hear about it? Were you informed it would take place but you were not required to attend? If so that is very strange. You need to find out what this is all about. You can start by checking your driving record with the DVLA: https://www.gov.uk/view-driving-licence Can you remember what it was that you first ignored? Was it a "request for driver's details" issued as a result of an alleged driving offence? It's really very difficult to give advice with so little information. You could try phoning Peterlee court to get some details. Just as a guess (and it's only a guess) to explain how the name errors might have come about: if somebody else was the recipient of the first "request for driver's details" and they nominated you as the driver, they may have provided your details incorrectly. Is that a likelihood? Had you driven somebody else's car or perhaps a hired car around the time this all began?

It's almost certainly a conviction in absence for "Failing to provide driver's details" (S172 RTA). This would result in a fine of £660, £66 "Victim Surcharge|" and £85 costs = £811. The OP should check his driving record with the DVLA He will probably find he has six points with an endorsement code MS90. Whether or not the warrant of control has expired is immaterial. The fine/costs etc. are still owed and are not written off simply because the warrant may have expired. Full details of the correspondence with the apparent errors in name etc. would be needed to advise on how to proceed. The conviction may be set aside by means of a Statutory Declaration, but whether one can be made depends on what the OP was served with and when. The OP probably now faces a "means enquiry" hearing and if so it is important he attends. He should not attempt to hide behind the "wrong name" technicality until he has established exactly what has happened. If the origin of this was a S172 request and he ignored the original "request for driver's details" on this basis he was very ill advised to have done so: As I said, full details of what was served and when are essential. It should be borne in mind that the Magistrates' Court has greater powers - including committal to prison for non-payment of fines for criminal matters - than the County Court has for civil matters.

"Stole" is a bit heavy unless the OP intended to permanently deprive the holder of it! .

It seems she is guilty of the drink-driving offence and must plead guilty to it. However, a court has the discretion not to endorse her licence or disqualify. That said, excess alcohol carries (in normal circumstances) a mandatory disqualification. Persuading the court that the circumstances were such that she had no alternative but to drive, for fear of the safety of herself or her child, is not something she should attempt herself as it really needs expert advice and representation in court This is one instance where a solicitor - preferably one who specialises in such matters - would be recommended.

Indeed Bazz. But it's been over two years since the judgement and nearly a year since the "consultation" was launched. I suppose they must be busy but quite why they need a "consultation" is mysterious. The problem was readily identified by the High Court and it should take a government lawyer a fairly short time to produce an amendment to the statute. I suppose one saving grace is that not many people seem to know of Barreto (yet) which I must say surprises me a little in this day and age. But the DfT needs to get its backside into gear.

A few points to note. 1. There is talk of issuing a FPN. That is not the procedure for a mobile phone offence. Once the driver has been identified, a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty might be made (if appropriate). That is different to a FPN. 2. You will note that such an offer must be made to the driver. Whoever witnessed this alleged offence does not know who was driving. So in order to find out the police must issue a request under s172 of the Road Traffic Act to the Registered Keeper. 3. Most importantly, in order to prosecute the driver successfully (should he decline a Fixed Penalty offer) the police must prove that the phone was being used for "interactive communication." This is as a result of the High Court judgement in the case of Ramsey Barreto vs DPP.: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/19-07-31-DPP-v-Barreto-Ref.-CO2702019-Judgment.pdf From your description, they may have some considerable difficulty doing that, so the rest becomes somewhat irrelevant. BTW a "NIP" is a Notice of Intended Prosecution. Where the driver was not stopped at the time of the alleged offence, certain offences require such a notice to be served on either the driver or the Registered Keeper within 14 days. As far as I can remember, a mobile phone offence is not one that does. I'll check and come back if I'm wrong.

Yes, No Insurance is a "strict liability" offence. That is, you either have it or you haven't. The question of intent is not relevant. There is a statutory defence to the charge which says this: (3)A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves— (a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan, (b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and (c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance as is mentioned in subsection (1) above. Of course this does not fit the bill as the vehicle was not being used in the course of his employment. Magistrates do have the discretion to listen to an argument that there are "Special Reasons Not to Endorse" (SRNTE) the defendant's licence. If they accept this argument they do not have to endorse the licence and impose points. However, I would rate the chances of success as quite low. There may be some merit in such an argument if the driver is insured to drive all your other vehicles and had no reason to believe he was not covered to drive this particular one. But it is complicated by the fact that it was not being used for work purposes (in fact if it was he would have a strong defence as I outlined above). Of course there is the possibility that even if he was insured for this particular vehicle for work purposes he may not be covered for private use. So before embarking on a SRNTE argument that would have to be clarified. To strengthen his argument he would be well advised to produce proof that he was covered to drive all your other vehicles and if he wasn't covered for non-work purposes the argument is a complete non-starter. To make his Special Reasons argument he would have to decline the Fixed Penalty offer and take the matter to court. There he would plead guilty but then present his argument. The downside to that is that if he is unsuccessful it will almost certainly cost him more than £300. He will pay a fine of a week's net income (although a kindly court may reduce that a little in the circumstances), a Victim Surcharge of 10% of the fine (minimum £34) and £85 costs. Although the court has the discretion to award between six and eight points (or even impose a disqualification) I would still expect to see the minimum of six imposed. So he would be basically gambling the difference between £300 and the sum which arises from the above calculation against the possibility of avoiding an endorsement.

Yes, no NIP is required when you were stopped at the time of the alleged offence. The Road Traffic Offenders' Act (s1) says this: Requirement of warning etc. of prosecutions for certain offences. (1)Subject to section 2 of this Act, a person shall not be convicted of an offence to which this section applies unless]— (a)he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration, or (b)within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, or (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— (i)in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the M1Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him, (ii)in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence. You could go to court and argue that a verbal warning of a possible prosecution was not provided during your dealings with the officer. I doubt you'd have much success with that as he would hardly have been asking for your details so that he could send you a Christmas card!

Certainly not a good idea to go anywhere near a court. Court's cannot order courses as a disposal at all, regardless of the speed.. If he is convicted in court he will face an income related fine, costs of £85 (assuming he pleads guilty), a Victim Surcharge of 10% of the fine (subject to a minimum of £34) and three points. As Bazza states, courses are only offered up to (Limit + 10% +9mph). After that it's a Fixed Penalty of £100 and 3 points and if you don't fancy that, off to court you go.

Before you respond to the request for driver's details you can ask for "photographs to help identify the driver." Where a variable speed limit is involved they will usually show a photo of your vehicle (though are normally of no help in identifying the driver) together with a photo of the gantry sign displaying the prevailing limit. As far as I can recall, those in the Clacket Lane area are of that type. You should be offered a speed awareness course for that speed provided you have not done one for an offence that occurred in the three years prior to this one.

Indeed, your fault, I'm afraid. Inform your insurers. Occasions where the injured party offers to get parts from the scrappers have a habit of ending badly, especially when you hear things like this:

The definition (according to the Road Traffic Act) of careless driving is when "...the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver." And that's it. Nothing about white lines; nothing about undertaking; nothing about merging. Nothing about anything, in fact. So with that in mind, it is impossible for anybody on here to give you a definitive answer as to whether your driving fell below standard. From your brief description it seems to me you undertook some vehicles and then cut in to merge with those in the outside lane. But that's only my opinion, based on what you have said and it counts for nothing. Since 2013 (IIRC) low level careless driving has been dealt with by way of the offer of a fixed penalty (£100 and 3 points). The police also have the option of offering a course (cost £100 but no points) so you may be offered one of those. If you want to accept neither, or the police think the matter is serious enough to go to court you will have the option to plead not guilty. The police will serve you with the evidence they intend to use to convict you along with a "Single Justice Procedure Notice" (a summons is no longer used). They have six months to take court action and in many areas they take all of that. Careless Driving carries a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine (though in practice it will be income based and limited to around a week's net income) and either between 3 and 9 points or a disqualification.

Yes, beware of "warranties" issued by conservatory companies. I had a fifteen year warranty with mine. Twelve months after the installation some of the DG units failed and began to mist. I contacted the installers only to be told that the company that installed mine had gone into liquidation. Meanwhile a "new" company had taken over the business. Same "T/A" name, same premises, same staff, same phone number. They could fix my problem, but unfortunately there would be a charge. Enquiries led me to discover that this company, which had been operating under the same name for forty years, performed this trick about every two years or so. You live and learn

It's arguable. Dangerous driving and careless driving both require a NIP to be served within 14 days in the same way as speeding does. The legislation (S1, Road Traffic Offenders Act) states that a NIP must specify "... the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed" So you could argue that the nature of dangerous/careless driving is totally different to that of speeding (and I would agree). So whilst there is nothing to stop the police or CPS preferring more charges, the lack of a NIP may make a prosecution likely to fail.

The difference between your case and Speedy's is that his involved an error on the summons. Yours is on the NIP. The two are judged at different levels, but nonetheless I am surprised that the court did not permit an amendment to the summons. As an aside, minor motoring offences are not commenced by way of summons now. They begin with a "Single Justice Procedure Notice" (sent to the defendant) together with a "Written Charge" (sent to the court). There is a different strategy you could consider. Before you return the Section 172 notice providing the driver's details, you could ask for "any photographs that will help identify the driver." They don't have to provide them but usually will. They don't usually help identify the driver (especially those taken from the rear) but it is a way of avoiding asking for "evidence" to which you are not entitled at this stage. When you have them you can confirm the location and if the NIP and S172 request state it incorrectly you could reply saying that your vehicle was not in the location mentioned at the relevant time. This is a risky business. Unless the police drop the matter out of "embarrassment" you will face a charge of "Failing to Provide Driver's Details" - an offence which carries six points. Whether you are convicted of that depends very much on all the circumstances and it's impossible to give a view here. But it might be worth a try. It is not your job to second guess what the police really mean when they ask who was driving your car at 12 noon in the High Street. You could give it some thought.

I don’t agree with Bazza’s assessment. The guidance to impose points rather than a ban applies when there is a choice of sentencing options. If he had driven on the cusp of a ban (say 105-110mph) either six points or a ban would be a consideration and points should be imposed so as to trigger the New Drivers’ rules. There are also occasions where drivers who clearly would not otherwise be banned ask for a short ban in order to circumvent those rules. That is what the guidance seeks to address. That is not the case here. I believe he can forget any idea that points will be imposed for this offence. He will be banned. I would expect the court to begin their deliberations at around six months and work upwards from there when they hear about his inexperience. Anything less than six months will be a result but I would not be surprised to see a ban of up to a year imposed. So the “New Drivers” legislation should not be a worry for him. All he will have to do is worry about where he will get insured and how much it will cost him. Insurers will see, together with his SP50 endorsement, that he also received a lengthy ban and will put two and two together (to come up with £££££s). He was indeed lucky not to have been caught camera and not by a patrol. If it had been a stop he may well be facing a careless (or more probably dangerous) driving charge. As it is, it is unusual to see such charges follow a camera catchment. If he fails to return the S172 request for driver’s details he will receive six points (which will see his licence revoked). That endorsement (MS90) for a young driver is probably a bigger killer insurance wise than speeding endorsements. The thinking behind that is that insurers wonder what the offender may have done that caused him to fail to name the driver. In this case their general suspicions would be well founded. The maximum fine for the offence is £2,500. However the guidance suggests a fine of a week’s net income. That incorporates his one third discount for a guilty plea. I would not be surprised if the court increases that in view of the seriousness of the offence. He will also pay a “Victim Surcharge” of 10% of the fine (minimum £34) and £85 costs.

Agree with Manxman. The NIP has to show "...the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed." As Manxman points out, the basis of the NIP is to provide you with sufficient information so as you are not disadvantaged. If you want to defend the matter on the basis that the NIP did not meet the requirements (of S1 of the Road Traffic Offenders' Act) you will have to have the matter heard in court. You will be required to give evidence and so be liable to cross examination. You will be questioned on the disadvantage you suggest the error caused you. You are unlikely to convince the court that the NIP was deficient enough to provide a defence (especially as you know exactly where the offence occurred) and failure will cost you the thick end of £1,000. You should be offered a course for that speed provided you have not done one for an offence which occurred in the three years prior to this one.

Indeed. But as I explained, they do have a remedy which should not see them disadvantaged.

So it wasn't actually lost, then?

You almost certainly cannot. The next thing you will receive will be a "Single Justice Procedure Notice". You will be asked to respond to it my choosing on of three options, one of which will be to plead guilty and have the matter dealt with by under the SJ procedure. You should select this. There will be a space for you to tell the court anything you want them to know. You should explain what has happened and ask that you be sentenced at the Fixed Penalty level. Magistrates have guidance which suggests they should do so 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. Your £100 should be returned in due course.

The guidelines suggesting how the police should deal with speeding matters are set by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and is invariably followed by all forces in England and Wales. It is here: https://www.npcc.police.uk/2018 FOI/Operations/030 18 Speed Enforcement Guidance.pdf You will see on page 8 a table. Unfortunately for you, 50mph is the speed at which a fixed penalty (FP) is no longer offered and court action begins. It is not unheard of for a FP to be offered at 50mph but it is unusual. Since you have been told the matter is going to court, the next thing you will receive is a “Single Justice Procedure Notice” and this may take up to six months to arrive. The police have six months in which to begin court proceedings and in many areas they take all of that. You will given three options: (1) To plead guilty and have the matter heard by a Single Justice; (2) To plead guilty and ask for a hearing in the normal Magistrates’ Court; (3) Plead Not Guilty. Obviously pleading Not Guilty is not an option for you (unless you fancy a very expensive day out). So it really depends which of (1) or (2) you want to go for. The penalties will be the same: the sentencing guidelines and costs asked for are identical wherever the case is heard. The Magistrates’ sentencing guidelines are here: Speeding (Revised 2017) – Sentencing (sentencingcouncil.org.uk) Sentencing for speeding is quite prescriptive and it is unusual for there to be any mitigating circumstances which will cause the court to depart from the guidelines. The circumstances you describe are certainly not among them. You exceeded the limit by a considerable margin and from your description the court will simply assume you became impatient. As bazza suggests, if anything, the action you took (to overtake horses at quite a speed) aggravates the offence. So the guidelines are almost certain to be followed. This will see you pay a fine of a week’s net income, reduced by a third for your guilty plea (so 66% of a week’s income). You will also pay £85 in prosecution costs and a “Victim Surcharge” of 10% of the fine (subject to a minimum of £34). The guidelines suggest a short ban of up to 28 days or 4-6 points. The most likely outcome on that score is six points. Where you have the matter dealt with is up to you. If you agree to the SJ route you will not have to attend (in fact you cannot attend – the case will be heard by a single Magistrate sitting in an office with a Legal Advisor). You will be given the opportunity to provide any explanation for the offence in writing when you respond to the SJPN. If you opt for a court appearance you can tell the court anything you want to in person. My view is least said the better because overtaking horses at high speed is not something the court will see as mitigation. It is unfortunate that there is a huge jump in the penalty once an offence is serious enough for court action but that’s how it is. If you had been reported at 49mph you would have been almost guaranteed £100 and three points.

Yes, thanks for that. But I need to know whether he provided the court with his financial circumstances. From the figures he quoted as fines, etc., I suspect not. Perhaps the OP could also tell us whether he was offered a fixed penalty for the offence.

Did you attend the hearing? If not, did you provide a statement of means explaining you were on benefits? There are also some other anomalies with the amounts levied, but if you could answer the above two questions first, I'll explain a possible way forward which might (only might) see the sums imposed reduced.

I'm not saying that this was the case, but could it have been that by the time you realised there was a camera you had already been captured and that you had slowed down afterwards? In any case, if you intend to defend this on the basis that the measurement of your speed cannot be relied upon you will have to reject any offers of a course or fixed penalty and plead Not Guilty in court. At your trial the prosecution will almost certainly produce evidence to show that your speed was measured by an approved device operated in the correct fashion. Without anything from you to discredit that evidence you will be convicted. So, you will have to show either that the device used to measure your speed was inaccurate or that it was not operated correctly. You do not have to merely cast doubt on the prosecution's evidence by saying "this might have happened" or "that could have occurred". You have to prove that in your specific case something made the measurement unreliable. If you are convicted following a trial you will face a fine of a week's net income, a surcharge of 10% of the fine (minimum £34), three points and prosecution costs which will be a minimum of £620. Whatever you decide do not forget to respond to the request for driver's details within the 28 days allowed. Failure to do so will see you commit a separate offence which carries six points, a hefty fine and insurance grief for five years.

I think you're somewhat missing the point of the BS marking. It is in place to denote that the plate has been made in accordance with the standard. If your idea was a runner, you could buy any rubbish you wanted to, stick the BS marking and a legitimate manufacturer's details on it and off you go! The regulations state that the plate must be manufactured to meet the standard, not that it must include a sticker to say that it has.