You need to contact the course provider to see if you can sort this out. But you must understand that the offer of a course is made entirely at the discretion of the police and there is no right of appeal if you are not offered one (for whatever reason). As an side, there is no right to a fixed penalty either and the police can simply begin court action if they wish (though they usually follow their guidelines).

Was cover actually granted by Hastings (even if only for a short time) or did they decline your proposal before it got that far?

Just to lay one thing to rest, you say you do not recall driving at that speed on that road. But do you recall driving on that road at the time mentioned? Assuming you do, after you have responded to the request for driver's details you should be offered a fixed penalty (£100 and three points) for that excess. If you don't fancy accepting that the police will prosecute you through the Magistrates' Court and if you are convicted the result will be much more expensive. If you want to defend the matter, the police will almost certainly produce evidence that your speed was measured by an approved device operated correctly. Without a defence from you, that will be sufficient to see you convicted. To defend the charge you must cast doubt on the evidence provided by the police to the extent that you must show that the measurement of your speed cannot be relied upon. Unfortunately turning up and saying you do not remember travelling at that speed will not cut the mustard.

Why did you head your question "Magistrates Court Act 1980, Sect 12(3)(B)? When you say your brother has been "Summoned" to the Magistrates Court, what exactly has he received? Summonses are rarely used these days. Proceedings usually begin with either a "Postal Requisition" or a "Single Justice Procedure Notice".

Yes (unless you especially want to attend - which I imagine you don't). I don't think there is much you can say about the offence itself except perhaps "apologies for wasting the court's time, momentary lapse of concentration" that sort of thing. You should also have been sent a Form MC100 "Statement of Means", which you should complete with details of your income and outgoings. This will enable the court to calculate the appropriate fine.

You don't have to say anything. In fact, in the first instance you will not be required to attend court at all because, unless you insist on a personal hearing, your case will be heard under the "Single Justice Procedure" and you cannot attend that hearing at all. You can write anything you want the court to hear when you respond to your Single Justice Procedure Notice (which is what you currently have). Only if the SJ believes a ban should be considered will you be invited to attend (the SJ will not ban you in your absence). If no ban is considered you will simply be sentenced by the SJ by way of a fine and points. If a ban is considered the SJ will adjourn your case and you will be given a date for a personal hearing in the normal court. If that happens, when you attend you can tell the court what effect a ban will have on you. You can decide at that stage whether to involve a lawyer or not. There really is no point in engaging a lawyer at this stage because he or she cannot attend your SJ hearing either.

If you are going to plead guilty I would save your money for your fines if I was you. For an offence such as this a solicitor is unlikely to save you anything like the amount you will be charged.

You need to find a solicitor who will take the time to read Section 3ZA of the Road Traffic Act. Whilst the penalty for each offence is the same, the definitions (and hence what the prosecution has to prove) are different. Section 3ZA provides the definitions. You can see the difference between the two in paragraphs (2) and (4) : 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. I can't really assist any further. I don't know what the video shows but that is the only real evidence there is. All the rest (the statements, etc.) simply provide provenance to support the footage. I have a suspicion that the prosecution may amend the charge to one of careless driving. All they have to do for that is to prove that your driving fell below the standard of a competent and careful driver. From your description it certainly did.

No. As I explained in post #8, that argument is only available for "totting up" bans (i.e. 12 points within three years). In any case, even when considering that argument, loss of employment alone would not normally be sufficient for the argument to succeed. Here's the Magistrates' guidance on the matter: When considering whether there are grounds to reduce or avoid a totting up disqualification the court should have regard to the following: It is for the offender to prove to the civil standard of proof that such grounds exist. Other than very exceptionally, this will require evidence from the offender, and where such evidence is given, it must be sworn. Where it is asserted that hardship would be caused, the court must be satisfied that it is not merely inconvenience, or hardship, but exceptional hardship for which the court must have evidence; Almost every disqualification entails hardship for the person disqualified and their immediate family. This is part of the deterrent objective of the provisions combined with the preventative effect of the order not to drive. If a motorist continues to offend after becoming aware of the risk to their licence of further penalty points, the court can take this circumstance into account. Courts should be cautious before accepting assertions of exceptional hardship without evidence that alternatives (including alternative means of transport) for avoiding exceptional hardship are not viable; Loss of employment will be an inevitable consequence of a driving ban for many people. Evidence that loss of employment would follow from disqualification is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate exceptional hardship; whether or not it does will depend on the circumstances of the offender and the consequences of that loss of employment on the offender and/or others. When you consult your solicitor, be sure to emphasise that it is driving without consideration that you have been charged with and not careless driving. As I have explained, there is a difference between the two in what has to be proved. From your description of events, you seem banged to rights for careless driving (and I cannot imagine why you have not been charged with that), but the offence with which you have been charged is nowhere near so clear cut. Do let us know what you are advised.

Careless driving most certainly would be. So would ignoring a red light. But driving without consideration? Who has been inconvenienced and where is the evidence that shows that?

Your choice. None of the evidence you have posted here shows who was inconvenienced by your alleged inconsiderate driving and it does not show how they were inconvenienced (unless that inconvenience stretches to having to submit the footage, which the court should not entertain). In my earlier post (#3) I explained the difference between Careless Driving and Inconsiderate Driving and explained that to secure a conviction for the latter the prosecution must prove that somebody was indeed inconvenienced. I don't see how they can do that from what you've posted here. The danger you face is that at some point, if a prosecution lawyer who knows what he or she is doing gets hold of the papers, they may see fit to amend the charge (probably to one of Careless Driving, of which I'm sure you would be convicted). They can do this right up to the closure of their case at the trial. You should then be given the opportunity to change your plea (as the offences are materially different) and, if you plead guilty, receive full credit for making that plea at the first opportunity. If it was me I would plead not guilty and opt for a trial. But if you are not confident enough to do that and see it through yourself you may be better off consulting a solicitor. At the very least it might be an idea to have a consultation to get an opinion on how the evidence might support the charge, because to me it doesn't.

Heading:" Inconsiderate driving offence" I would have thought that had the charge been "Careless Driving" (which does seem the most appropriate) the OP would have said so. Not many people mention "Inconsiderate Driving" unless they are prompted by something on their paperwork. . Looking at the sentencing guidelines and using the limited information we have, I would suggest not. For a disqualification to be considered there has to be both "Higher Culpability" and "Greater Harm." There's certainly higher culpability present (in the form of aggressive driving, though that's somewhat arguable, depending on the exact circumstances). The only possibility of the court finding "greater harm" is if there was a high level of traffic or pedestrians in the vicinity. If they only find one or the other then the offence sits in Category 2, for which the recommended penalty is 5-6 points. As always, it's impossible to say what the court will find because we only have very limited details and we will not see the video evidence. But that's my "educated guess." But more important than that at this stage is for the OP to confirm what the actual charge is and, if it is "inconsiderate driving", whether there is evidence to support that.

Yes. See my earlier reply quoting the legislation and the CPS charging practice. Indeed the driving behaviour does not look good. But if the OP has been charged with inconsiderate driving, the prosecution must prove that somebody was inconvenienced. It's insufficient to prove that they might have been or they could have been. They have to prove that they were.

Before we go into likely the likely sentence, it's important to establish whether you have a defence to this charge. Have you been served with the evidence the police have against you? If so, does it provide any proof of who was inconvenienced by your driving? Is it the person who submitted the dashcam footage? As to the likely sentence, the offence carries between three and nine penalty points or a ban. However, a ban would only be considered for the most serious cases and from your brief description, whilst your driving seems quite bad, I don't think it reaches the top end of seriousness. If you want to see them, the sentencing guidelines are here: Careless Driving (drive without due care and attention) (Revised 2017) – Sentencing WWW.SENTENCINGCOUNCIL.ORG.UK Those guidelines are for careless driving, but they are used for inconsiderate driving as well. You can see there are three bands of seriousness and from what you have told us I believe your incident fits with the middle band, meaning the court might consider 5 or 6 points. You should note, however, that although the court will listen to anything you have to say (or read what you have submitted if you do not appear in person), if a ban is being considered you have no right to argue about the hardship you may suffer if you are banned. That argument is only available for "totting up" bans. But before you worry about that, it is most important that you look at the evidence to see if it supports the "inconsiderate driving" charge.

As far as appeals go, decisions made under the Single Justice Procedure are subject to the same rules as those made in the ordinary Magistrates' Court. In fact, apart from the defendant being unable to attend an SJ hearing, there is virtually no difference between the two. If you plead guilty (whether under the SJ procedure or in the normal court) you cannot appeal against your conviction. You can, however, appeal against your sentence. Your appeal must be lodged within 21 days of your conviction and it will be heard in the Crown Court before a judge and two Magistrates (from a different Bench to the one which originally sentenced you). You should bear in mind that the sentencing exercise is conducted afresh and you can be handed a more severe penalty than the one imposed in the lower court. If your appeal fails you will be ordered to pay costs. As an aside, you mention that you have been charged with "inconsiderate driving." For a prosecution for that offence to succeed there must be evidence that another person has actually been inconvenienced by your driving. This is covered by RTA S3ZA(4): "A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving." [my emphasis] The CPS charging practice guidelines for the offence says this about the difference between careless driving and inconsiderate driving: "in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced." So does the evidence you have show that some other person was inconvenienced by your driving?

I shouldn't imagine they did that. They simply processed the case in the normal way. The people in the ticket office are not "decision makers" in the way you asked them to be. They have a fairly rigid process which they usually stick to. In the case of a transgression in a 30mph limit, their process is: Under 35mph - No Action 35-42mph - Offer a course. 43-49mph - Offer a Fixed Penalty (£100 and three points) 50mph and above - court action. What you were asking them to do is to consider a challenge to the evidence they have which verifies the speed. They will normally only do this in the event of a plate mis-read. Other than that, as far as they are concerned, the evidence they have is reliable enough for court action and if you want to challenge its reliability then court is the only place to do so. If your relative had ignored the offer a course a fixed penalty would have been offered (provided there was still time to prosecute in the event of the offer not being taken up). If that offer was ignored then court action would be taken.

Then that's largely that. As I said, stuff happens. All you can do is let your insurers deal with the matter.

You can report this type of incident on line and get a crime reference without having to speak to anybody. All you need to do is that and, of course, report it to your insurers. You don't really need to give yourself all this grief by trying to obtain the CCTV (which may not help you anyway). If anybody legally needs it they will make an application for it.

Just out of interest, what would you have done if you had been provided with the CCTV footage as soon as you asked for it?

Time for The Godmother to go seek advice elsewhere, methinks (perhaps a solicitor at £150 per hour rather than someone who is giving their time for free). I'll try (but I doubt I'll be well received): The sort of problem you face is notoriously difficult to solve. Quite honestly the widespread use of CCTV in this country is a waste of time in many instances. As you have seen, it is virtually impossible to gain access to it and if you are lucky enough to find someone who agrees to provide it, by the time you do so it will have been overwritten. I think you will have to suck this one up. For future reference, if anything similar happens again: 1. Report it to the police. 2. Report it to your insurers (as you are almost certainly obliged to anyway). The police won't do anything but you'll need to do so for when you do (2). Let your insurers sort it out - it's what you pay your premiums for. Stuff happens, I'm afraid, and sometimes the perpetrator cannot be brought to book.

Yes, unclebulgaria has raised a good point which I neglected to mention. Your policy will almost certainly include a condition which places an obligation on you to inform your insurers of any accidents/incidents etc. You need to tell them about this.

This is not quite so straightforward. Section 154 of the RTA says this: 154 Duty to give information as to insurance where claim made. (1)A person against whom a claim is made in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy of insurance under section 145 of this Act must, on demand by or on behalf of the person making the claim— (a)state whether or not, in respect of that liability— (i)he was insured by a policy having effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act, or (ii)he would have been so insured if the insurer had not avoided or cancelled the policy, and] (b)if he was or would have been so insured — (i)give such particulars with respect to that policy as were specified in any certificate of insurance delivered in respect of that policy under section 147 of this Act, or (ii)where no such certificate was delivered under that section, give the following particulars, that is to say, the registration mark or other identifying particulars of the vehicle concerned, the number or other identifying particulars of the insurance policy issued in respect of the vehicle, the name of the insurer and the period of the insurance cover. (2)If without reasonable excuse, a person fails to comply with the provisions of subsection (1) above, or wilfully makes a false statement in reply to any such demand as is referred to in that subsection, he is guilty of an offence. Of course the issue is that this section applies "where a claim is made." A claim may be made, but not successfully, but nonetheless a claim may still be made. As well as that, some insurers have agreements where, although one party may be liable, each insurer pays for repairs to their own policyholder's vehicle. Apart from possibly facing prosecution for an offence under s154 (which is very unlikely), it scarcely makes any difference. The Third Party's insurers can easily find out the details of your insurance if they have your vehicle details.

For misusing a Freedom Pass TfL very rarely settle out of court and I think your friend can look forward to prosecution. The "extenuating circumstances" you mention are nothing of the sort. Such circumstances or mitigation should be used to lessen the seriousness of the offence or provide some explanation as to why it was committed. Being a carer or a breadwinner does neither. I would not trouble providing evidence of those facts as it will not make the slightest difference to the outcome. Depending on the circumstances the holder of the Freedom Pass may also be contacted by TfL (and possibly see action) because lending it somebody else is in breach of its terms and conditions. Before doing anything your friend should wait for TfL to make further contact because at present he or she does not know what the allegation is. Just as an aside: I don't have any friends who have been caught doing this.

Hi BadLad Yes, a prosecutor will be present. It's worth a shot as asking for discontinuation - nothing to lose. If the prosecutor has done his/her job properly the evidence should have been reviewed by then. You can take Mrs BadLad to your CM hearing. She may not see it as much of a day out as there will probably be lots of hanging around. She can observe from the public gallery. I would certainly let the prosecutor know, at the earliest opportunity, that she is prepared to give evidence that she was driving. Before she can do so she will be asked to provide a statement to that effect, hence the reason I suggested she has one prepared. She cannot be prosecuted for speeding as the offence is now time expired. They had the opportunity to prosecute her when they received your response to the s172 notice but - for reasons that seem known only to them - they chose not to. In the event that she is asked to give "live" evidence on the trial day she will have to remain outside the courtroom until she is called in. I really cannot see, from the evidence you have been served with, just how the prosecution will handle this. If all they have is the two photos you have posted (and if they have anything else they must disclose it to you) I cannot see any court agreeing that they show (at all, let alone "beyond reasonable doubt") that somebody other than your wife was driving. Let me know if you need any other help but do keep us posted as I'm absolutely intrigued!

No that’s not correct. Almost all trials in the Magistrates’ Court undergo a “Case Management” (CM) hearing. It is a similar process to the “plea and directions” hearing in the Crown Court. The idea of it is to prepare the case for trial. You will be asked to indicate the basis of your plea (i.e. why you deny the charge). Also to be determined is what the “issues” in dispute are – what is agreed and what is not agreed. Any witnesses required to attend are also identified and their availability checked.. A trial date will also be fixed and the general idea is that the trial can proceed with no problems on the appointed day. The basis of your NG plea is that you responded to the s172 request, identifying the person who was driving, within the time allowed. There seems no dispute about this and the witness statement you have been served with confirms it. You don't dispute any of this. The only issue is that the ticket office believes you have nominated somebody other than the driver and, that being the case, it falls to them to prove it “beyond reasonable doubt.” It is important to realise that the CM hearing will not be judging or assessing the evidence or anything else to do with reaching a verdict. So, unless the prosecutor sees that the evidence is somewhat unconvincing and decides to fold, it will proceed to trial. I would get your wife to write a statement confirming she was the driver and have this available at the hearing. You cannot “ambush” the prosecution with it on the trial day as they should have the opportunity to see her attend court if they wish so that they can cross-examine her. Personally I don’t believe it will be necessary because if the photos you have posted is all they have got they cannot possibly make out their case. You would be entitled, after they have presented it, to submit that there is “no case to answer” (as I mentioned earlier). Yes. In the event you are acquitted you can ask the court to award reasonable costs that you have incurred. The court is unlikely to be critical of the police but if they are they will not order punitive damages. As far as I am aware they have no powers to do so. You should be prepared for a long haul with this. Your trial date is not likely to be much before the end of the year but that is not all there is to it. Magistrates’ Courts “double book” trials as a matter of routine as they frequently fail to go ahead as expected. Your trial will be lower priority at the first attempt and if the other booked trial is ready it will take precedence.