Well they would say that, wouldn't they. But arguably the people using the electricity are guilty under s13 of the Theft Act ("Abstracting Electricity"): Anybody who uses electricity must know it has to be paid for. Anybody doing so and not paying for it are using it dishonestly and without authority. But you wouldn't expect the police to get involved in such a trifling matter.

So what are you proposing other than taking your Certificate of Insurance to your local Nick? Even though it was not your error, one way or another you are going to have to resolve this. Surely that is the easiest way to do so.

I think you were fortunate to have been given a producer. Most drivers whom the police suspect of driving uninured these days see their vehicle seized and go home on the bus. Just take your Certificate of Insurance to your nominated police station and provided it is in order that will be the end of the matter. What else did you have in mind?

Just a point of pedantry on the above: the notice cannot be challenged. It is simply a notice warning you of possible prosecution. The only avenue of challenge you have opens up when you have declined (or ignored) any out of court disposals the police may offer you. In that event you will be prosecuted in court and you can plead not guilty to the charge. The Notice will play no part in that prosecution unless you suggest it was deficient in some way (for example, if it was served outside the 14 day time limit).

Indeed. The National Police Chiefs' Council's guidance for speeding enforcement suggests action should be take at (Limit+10%+2mph) so 35mph in a 30mph limit. Average speed cameras are probably the most accurate of the devices used. They simply measure the time taken to travel a known distance. Bear in mind that unless you were travelling at precisely 35.3mph for the entire stretch, you would have been travelling at more than that speed at some point. You must complete and return the "request for driver's details" regardless of any issues you may have with the speeding allegation. Failure to do so will see you commit a separate offence which carries six points. You will almost certainly be offered a speed awareness course for that speed (they are offered up to (Limit + 10% + 9mph)) provided you have not done one in the last three years. It will cost you around £100, but no endorsement or points.

Don't fanny about with customer service and call centres. Write to this bloke: Tom Joyner, Managing Director, Cross Country, Cannon House, 18 The Priory Queensway, Birmingham, B4 6BS. Of course he won't answer it personally but he probably has a department which will ensure somebody addresses your issue properly instead of giving you the brush off..

Yes the article is seriously misleading for all the reasons given above. Once a driver passes his test, his "entitlement to drive" normally lasts until he is 70. That entitlement may be withdrawn or shortened (for example, for medical reasons) but generally the driver is entitled to drive until his 70th birthday. What is most misleading of all is the issue of insurance. There are very few reasons which entitle insurers to decline cover for third party risks as required by the RTA and the driver having an expired photocard is not among them..

I didn't know you'd been charged with dangerous driving. First you've mentioned of it. I've tried, but I think I'm out (again). Do let us know how it goes.

How will finding out whether there were any issues with any unspecified weighing equipment from an unspecified time in the past help you with your argument? There is a basic tenet in law that any equipment used as a measuring device is presumed to be accurate unless the contrary can be proved. If you are to use faulty equipment as a defence you must prove to the court that the equipment used to weigh your vehicle was faulty on the occasion it was used to weigh it. Simply suggesting that since some other equipment used elsewhere to weigh something else was faulty, then that used to weigh your vehicle may be unreliable, will not cut the mustard.

They are prosecuting under s40a of the RTA (Using vehicle in dangerous condition etc). This previous thread was locked as it was going nowhere: It centred around the potential sentence (the explanations for which, provided both here and elsewhere, were not believed). This will probably end up the same way.

It's still not clear what your friend has been sent. Cases like this do not usually start with a summons. But no matter. If your friend really is appearing in the Magistrates' Court, there are two options: 1. Plead guilty and be sentenced. 2. Plead not guilty and have her case set down for trial at a later date. To defend this she will have to cast doubt on the evidence in the officer's statement (which clearly states that the litter was discarded and left). This can be done by asking him to attend court and cross examining him. This is not an easy task. But if it is not done successfully a conviction will almost certainly follow. Your friend can give evidence that she did not drop the litter and leave it and it will be up to the court which version they believe (with your friend being given the benefit of any doubt the Magistrates may have). This decision will have to be made before the court appearance.

Without seeing the statements it is difficult to say whether they would secure a conviction. Any video evidence cannot be used in court unless it is served on your friend before she enters a plea. The hinge of this case will be, from what you have said, whether there is evidence to support the fact that your friend "left" the litter (and not that some jobsworth believed it might be left). Is what she has received definitely a summons? You could try posting it up here (suitably redacted) but if the court hearing is tomorrow I doubt there's time to do that. At least if you could tell us what it says (exact words) it might help. What is your friend proposing to do?

As above, the offence is dropping litter and leaving it. There has to be evidence that the litter was left, not merely that somebody believed it might be left. What exactly has your friend been sent? Summonses are no longer used for most offences now. If it is "going to court" she should have been served with the evidence that the prosecution will rely on to secure a conviction and that should include a statement from the officer explaining what was witnessed.

Do be sure to let us - and the people on the other forums you have posted on, who gave their free time to advise you - how you get on. I'm sure we'd all like to learn from your experience..

The only time scales that the police must comply with are: 1. They have 14 days from the date of the alleged offence to serve a "Notice of Intended Prosecution" (a "NIP) on the person (or body) shown as the Registered Keeper at the time of the offence. You should note this is the only NIP required by law and so is the only one subject to any time limit. Any others are served as a courtesy and also because they are usually printed on the same piece of paper as the accompanying "Request for Driver's Details" (known as a "Section 172 request) which is not subject to any time limit. 2. They have six months from the date of the offence (12 months if the offence occurred in Scotland) to begin court proceedings. You should be offered a course for that speed (unless the offence occurred in Scotland, where they are not offered at all). This is provided you have not done one for an offence that occurred in the three years prior to this one. Otherwise a Fixed Penalty (£100 and 3 points) awaits. Make sure you get your response to the s172 request in promptly as these out-of-court disposals are not usually offered beyond 4 months from the date of the offence.

You have been advised on here, and elsewhere, by people who do know what they are talking about. Although I must accept that I have not been charged with the same or a similar offence, this includes me. Somebody who has been charged with a similar offence may not necessarily know what they are talking about and in any case the outcome of their case will depend on all of its circumstances, which will almost certainly be different to yours. You keep on asking questions to which there is a definitive answer which you have already been given. For example, you keep on asking whether prison is a possibility. You have been told that it is not and anybody who has faced a similar charge will tell you likewise because it is not legally possible. You can check any advice you have received online by looking at the relevant legislation. The Road Traffic Act Section 40a, under which you have been charged) is here: Road Traffic Act 1988 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to road traffic with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. The Road Traffic Offenders’ Act (which gives, at Schedule 2, details of the penalties that can be imposed for the offence) can be found here: Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the prosecution and punishment (including the punishment without conviction) of road traffic offences with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law... I have not said that. I don't doubt they're true. I said they do not form the basis of a defence that is likely to succeed. It amounts to the same thing and does not provide you with a defence or even mitigation. Drivers are expected to know the law in relation to the vehicles they are driving. If they don't they can expect to be prosecuted. No I’m not because I don’t rent vans. If I did, particularly if I did so professionally, I would make it my business to find out the maximum payload etc. But it isn’t what I know or don’t know that matters. You have not been charged with exceeding an axle load or payload. You have been charged with “Using vehicle in dangerous condition.” Specifically when “…the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured, is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person. And the fine for that offence is unlimited (though based on income) The police obviously believed the weight of your load posed a danger of injury to another person. I wish you luck if you decide to defend the charge on the basis you've mentioned. I’m out now.

This OP has been given good (and consistent) advice from other places. In a nutshell: Nothing he says provides anything in the way of a defence so his best option is to plead guilty. As the driver he is responsible for ensuring the vehicle was not overloaded to a dangerous degree. His ignorance of the vehicle's payload capability, etc. is no defence. The notion that he was unaware of the overloading is a bit fanciful. He contends that he should not be guilty because no danger or injury to anybody else resulted and that the vehicle was not dangerous because he detected "...no bent chassis or smoke coming from tyres or bouncing chassis.". This, of course, misses a very important point. The braking system of a vehicle is designed for a maximum payload. To carry almost twice that payload will obviously present a danger in the event of an emergency. The offence carries an unlimited fine though, as with all fines, it will be income related. The penalty will probably be quite hefty in his case because of the degree of overload. It also carries three points or a disqualification, with a second conviction for a similar offence within three years seeing a mandatory ban. He cannot go to prison for it under any circumstances. He is extremely unlikely to see a ban imposed for this single offence. It cannot be dealt with anywhere other than in the Magistrates' Court. It cannot be referred to the Crown Court. This is now the fourth forum I have seen this question posed and I get the impression he feels that if he asks the question a sufficient number of times he may get the reassurance he seeks!

I think you will have to.

Has anything recently happened that has caused you to raise this issue? No court (either civil or criminal) is likely to entertain a complaint that arose from a mistake that happened thirty years ago. You claim for wrongful arrest was unlikely to have succeeded. The police obviously had reasonable grounds to suspect you had committed an offence and they would be entitled to arrest you on that basis. It is not "wrongful" to arrest you on such suspicion if it was based on information which they had no reason to believe was incorrect.

No it isn't set at any particular value. The energy price cap guarantee determines that consumers should not pay more than (currently) £2,500 pa for what is termed "typical" use. This is 12,000kWh of gas and 2,900kWh of electricity. How the cap is implemented (i.e. the balance between unit cost and daily charge) is up to individual suppliers. The cap only applies to those on the supplier's standard variable tariff.

Yes that's more like it. You will almost certainly be asked to attend court when they look at your request and it's important you attend (otherwise your request is unlikely to be considered). Let us know if you do.

One other thing that I should have mentioned last night is that when your request to reopen is listed to be heard you will be asked to attend. The Magistrates will almost certainly want to question you regarding your request. If they agree to reopen and they set aside either your conviction the prosecution will be asked how they wish to proceed. That is why I'm quite certain your request to reopen has not yet been put before the court.

Alania, you really must get a grip of this. From your description, the postal strike had no bearing on this at all. All you can say is that the SJPN took a week to reach you when it should have taken perhaps a couple of days. It meant you had a little less time to respond, but it doesn't explain why you didn't respond at all. That's why I said you should emphasise your poor state of mind at that time. But more than that, it is most unlikely that the court has already agreed to your request. As I said, it cannot be agreed by administrative staff; it must go before Magistrates. You only sent your e-mail late this afternoon and whilst I'm not saying it's impossible to have gone before a court so soon, it's most unlikely. You need to check what stage it's at. Just for your information, the law under which you are making this request says this: "A magistrates’ court may vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so; and it is hereby declared that this power extends to replacing a sentence or order which for any reason appears to be invalid by another which the court has power to impose or make." You can see it is a court that has this power. It does not extend to court staff, however senior. I would imagine that at this stage, at best, somebody has agreed to put your request before a court (which, in itself, is a good result if it is true). I don't want you to get your hopes up prematurely.

Make sure you get any agreement to put the fines etc. on hold in writing (or e-mail). You don't want bailiffs knocking at your door. When you make your request to reopen you need to provide a reason and, as earlier, I recommend you major on the "not in a fit state to respond" angle. If you say you simply forgot, it will not fly. But your request (however it is put) should not be rejected by administrators; it should be put to the court. So be prepared for a struggle to get that done.

It’s not usual but not uncommon. With the dates being a bit “cloudy” it may well be that the speeding offence had already timed out, though probably not. However, Akania had the opportunity to go down that road (if the speeding had timed out, it is not unheard of for prosecutors to raise an “out of time” speeding charge) but the time to do so was at the SJ stage. I know you are only ranting, but it would not have made any difference would it? You received the SJPN on 15th December and you had two weeks to respond; it’s just that you didn’t act on it. They don’t need proof that you received it, only that they posted it. The law (Interpretation Act 1978, Section 7) says that a notice sent in the post is deemed “served” two working days after posting. If the recipient wants to argue that it was not received, it is up to him to prove it. But the strike isn’t an issue, is it? Although it took seven days to reach you, you received the SJPN in plenty of time to respond to it. I’m not criticising you here; what’s done is done and I’m not in the criticism business. I’m just trying to explain how a court will view this. I’ve been wracking my brains to identify a way out of this and regrettably I can’t. I really do not recommend the Crown Court route. You don’t have much of a case and the cost of failure is high. I can only suggest you approach the Magistrates’ Court with a request to reopen your case on the basis that you were not mentally in the right place to deal with the SJPN in time. This will cost you nothing. I can tell you that you will have a struggle with this, not because of the merits of your case but because the administrative staff who you contact usually don’t know the correct procedure. Your request can only be dealt with by being put before Magistrates. It is a judicial decision, not an administrative one that can be made by court staff. You will have to insist it is put before the court and you should be prepared to contact the Clerk to the Justices if necessary. As I said, I still don’t think you have the makings of a defence to the charge. But you may persuade the court to allow you to enter a guilty plea and be fined according to your means. This will considerably reduce the damage, but the conviction and six points will remain. No. Although the offence results in a criminal conviction, it is not a “recordable offence” and you should encounter no difficulties.