Have you already emailed them? It wasn't clear if you had or not...

Sorry @Akania1970 - but what does "They agreed to accept to reopen the case based on the postal strike... " mean?

@Man in the middle - you know far more than I do about the processes involved in motoring prosecutions. In this sort of situation where the police believe a driver has failed to respond to a s172 request, isn't the standard procedure to dual charge the driver with both speeding and failure to identify, thus giving the person charged an opportunity (if they were the speeding driver) to plea bargain their way out of the failure to identify charge? That doesn't seem to have happened here. Is that unusual? I appreciate that if the speeding has already timed out then there will only be a s172 charge, but has this speeding timed out? The OP appears to think the offence was as recent as august 2022. See #5 [Edit: Ah. On re-reading the thread I think the OP has got the date of the failure to identify offence confused with the date of the speeding offence. I think the date of the failure to identify offence was 29 August 2022. We don't know the date of the speeding offence]

Hi @Akania1970 - sorry to ask yet again, but it might be important to get this absolutely clear. I know you've been very muddled and upset over all this but I just want to be sure. I'm not criticising you or trying to catch you out or anything. You say in the post I quote above that you never responded to the SJPN dated dated 08 December 2022 which was asking you to plead either guilty or not guilty to the offence of failing to identify the driver. That is the one that you had to reply to by 29 December. Yet in at least two separate previous posts (#1 and #5 ) you appear to be saying that you did submit a plea in response to that SJPN: As I say I'm not getting at you or trying to catch you out, I'm just exploring what has happened. Is it possible that you did make a plea but you've forgotten in all the confusion and panic?

Without knowing exactly what circumstances led up to the two convictions I'm not sure anybody can say with certainty that this can be "easy sorted". Yes a stat dec can be done to set aside the convictions, but the OP will still face the original charges and we don't know what defences he (or she) will have to those original charges. [Edit: although the 3rd March speeding offence will now have been over 6 months ago, I assume it won't have timed out and that the original charge will still be active, but I may be wrong. I'm pretty certain the failure to identify charge will still stand]

What exactly is this high value (c £500) item? Is it something that somebody known to you could conceivably have sent to you as a surprise present (although that would be a remarkably stupid and high risk thing to do without informing you beforehand) or is it something that could have no conceivable connection to you whatsoever? It's highly unlikely that very or anybody else has sent you what are truly unsolicited goods. If the goods are really worth around £500 and you know you haven't ordered them I think there is quite an onus on you to get to the bottom of what has happened. If they weren't intended for you presumably they belong to somebody else, regardless of how they ended up with you. (If you find out somebody has sent you a surprise gift, I'd give them a right rollocking... )

Yes - looking more closely at the dates they probably can't be connected. Speeding offence date 3rd March 22, failure to identify 2nd March 22. The failure to identify offence only happens 28 days after they sent you the s172 response to name the driver and you failed to respond. Assuming you weren't the RK that means that the speeding offence connected with the failure to identify charge must have been sometime in January 22 or earlier, and nothing to do with the 3rd March speeding offence. The RK of the car that was connected with that earlier speeding offence (or the last person in the chain between that RK and you) must have nominated you as the driver but given a wrong address. Either that or several different documents relating to the offence have gone missing in the post... At some point you need to find out how you came to be nominated in respect of the failure to identify charge, and see if whoever nominated you gave your correct address. If they didn't (and if it wasn't your fault they gave the wrong address) that might help you with the failure to identify charge. But your current priority is arranging to swear the stat dec. (NB - what you swear to must be true, otherwise you commit an offence) Couple of curious points: 1. Difficult to see how you could have been convicted of speeding in your absence at Southend if you had never responded to a s172 request asking for driver details. I presume you had never been asked to id the driver in respect of the 3rd March speeding offence? 2. Two convictions entirely unrelated to each other suggest that somebody gave the wrong address for you on more than one occasion if you never received the two sets of paperwork. [Edit: You don't happen to have a very common name that could lead to confusion with somebody else do you? like John Smith?]

[Cross-posted with @Man in the middle] As posted before I think you will need to swear a statutory declaration in court to the effect that you were unaware that you had been charged with these offences and had been convicted without your knowledge. Did you find out more than 21 days ago? If you do a stat dec within 21 days of finding out about the convictions the court has to accept it - no questions asked. If you are outside 21 days, you will need a very good reason for the delay or it will all become more difficult for you... If I were you I would try to contact the court that convicted you and ask for details of the convictions. From that screenshot of your licence, were you convicted at Southend-on-sea magistrates court? (Sorry - I'm no expert at interpreting driving licence records! Do you live in Southend?) I can't really be any more help. If it was Southend mags court you could try contacting them and ask. Their number appears to be 01245 313300 according to this link: Southend Magistrates' Court - Find a Court or Tribunal - GOV.UK (find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk) I think if I were you I'd be trying to sort this out fairly urgently. If you drive for a living you don't want 9 points on your licence if you can avoid it. (Somebody somewhere down the line - your employer or a vehicle hire firm perhaps? - must have supplied the wrong address for you to the police otherwise you would have known about this earlier. You should have received at least two earleir communications in respect of this)

Just to add: 1. So long as you contact the court within the 21 days to arrange to swear a statutory declaration, you should be OK even if it takes more than 21 days to get it sorted, so long as the delay was only because the court could not arrange an earlier date. Keep a record of any communications you have in respect of arranging a date. Try to stay within the 21 days. 2. Get the details of your two convictions ASAP. I'm not sure but I suspect you'll need those before you can swear the SD. Were you convicted in your local court? 3. It's a pity the convictions appear to be from March 2022. That might limit your options after you've sworn the SD as to how you can plead.

Changing the address on your driver's licence is irrelevant. The address you must change is the address on your car's V5C (used to be known as the car's logbook). Are you the Registered Keeper of the car with the DVLA and do you have the V5C in your possession? If you are and you have, is the address on the V5C correct? If you don't own the car (eg it's on a lease) the lease company or somebody else will probably be the RK and will hold the V5C. If so, have you updated your address with them? The most important question at this stage is: "When did you find out about these past convictions?". My understanding is that the correct course of action for you now is to swear a statutory declaration that you were never previously aware of these proceedings against you. If you swear it within 21 days the court must accept it. The effect of a statutory declaration is that it resets the process and gives you an opportunity to enter a plea to the charges. So it removes the conviction and points for the time being, but you still have to face the charges. If you are outside the 21 day window, it gets more complicated... A statutory declaration can be sworn for free at a court or in front of a solicitor for a fee. I'm not sure, but I believe the usual advice is to try to swear it at the court that convicted you, or failing that your local court. Try contacting them and explain what has happened. Do it ASAP. Are you sure you have both a SP30 and a MS90? I think that indicates they've convicted you of both speeding (without any evidence?) and failing to identify the driver. That's unusual as if they have no evidence you were driving the court can really only convict you of the failure to identify. You need to find out exactly what circumstances you've been convicted in. You need to get it sorted out as the MS90 conviction will load your insurance premiums for the next 5 years. Aren't you being chased to pay a couple of hefty fines too? Ther is another regular poster @Man in the middle who is more knowledgeable than me and can give you more useful advice. Hopefully he'll see this.

Sounds as if you never actually pleaded Guilty or Not Guilty to anything. I don't want to confuse you further, but I'll try to explain what I think has happened. When you returned the Request for Driver Details that had been addressed to you, that is all you were doing. You were just identifying a driver - ie yourself. You were not pleading guilty to the speeding offence or anything else. (I know that may sound hard to believe, but it's true - you were not pleading guilty to any offence, you were just identifying yourself as having been the driver of the vehicle in question at a certain location at a certain date and time). It sounds as if - for whatever reason - the police never received your response to the Request for Driver Details, so as far as they are concerned you never identified anyone. Unfortunately, not responding to a Request for Driver Details is a more serious offence than the original speeding offence and carries 6 points and a large fine. Also increased insurance premiums. The SJPN you received would probably only have been in respect of what the police considered to have been your failure to identify yourself as the driver, and nothing to do with the original speeding charge. Because you haven't responded to it, or submitted a plea in respect of it, you would appear to have been convicted in your absence. You need to upload copies of all the paperwork you have as @Man in the middle has requested. He might be able to come up with a plan for you to try to minimise the bad effects of this. Follow the upload guidance referred to by @dx100uk in post #17. By the way, don't feel bad about not getting a proof of posting. If you didn't know it was good idea to do so there's no real reason why you should be expected to think of it. (But if you ever find yourself in this situation again, keep a copy of your signed response and go to a post office counter to post it first class, and ask the counter staff for a free certificate of posting!) It's no consolation but I do think the law handles this process of obtaining driver details in a very confusing and over-complicated way. I'm sure many people end up in a similar predicament to yours...

Sorry dx, you're right! It's a pity they didn't seek advice when they got the SJPN as I'm wondering if they could still have tried to get away with a plea bargain then even tho' they hadn't been charged with speeding. The speeding hasn't timed out yet. Probably a bit late if they simply pleaded guilty to the failure to identify without being aware of the consequences. Specially if they've got any evidence they did actually return the form...

How did you select 1st class signed for? I must admit I'm not familiar with all the different methods of RM delivery, but a quick look on their website says 1st class signed for only gives compensation up to £50 and that if you are sending anything more valuable you should use Special Delivery Guranteed which automatically gives you cover up to £500. UK services for sending mail | Royal Mail If you were advised by a post office or RM worker that you should use 1st class signed for to send something valued over £50 you might have some complaint against them, but if you chose it yourself I'm not sure you have any recourse.

1. When did you receive your own "Request for Driver's details"? Can you remember? 2. What date did you return it? 3. Had you signed it? 4. Did you keep a copy of what you sent? (eg a photo on a phone) 5. Did you post it 1st class from a post office and get a certificate of posting? 6. If not, have you any other evidence that you sent it back? And as @Man in the middle asks, did you plead Guilty or Not Guilty in response to the SJP?

Isn't that paperwork incomplete? Does a brand spanking new Yaris only cost £2195?

OK. It wasn't clear to me but those forms seemed to be for enforcing Employment Tribunal awards and/or ACAS settlements.

I'm probably being thick, but the links in respect of the two quotes below appear to reference forms for enforcing decisions and settlements reached via ACAS. (??? ) Is that right? This thread is about non-payment of an insurance claim, and although it's been referred to the FOS (not ACAS) my understanding is the FOS haven't made any decision about it yet (??? ) Of course I may be completely wrong and mistaken...

I'm not going to check anything because I don't need to be persuaded of anything. When the builder explains to the court that he was only contracted to carry out underpinning and not piling, and the court asks for your response to that, what will you tell the court? That the judge should check google or a dictionary? Can we please see this contract signed by the builder? You refer to it yourself in para 5 of your witness statement as Exhibit 2. I'm quite happy to accept that you might be correct. But if you are correct that would mean that your builder had agreed to an open-ended committment in respect of Project 1 to follow your engineer's instructions, come what may, for a fixed price of just £4300. And to be perfectly honest, I find that a bit difficult to believe. And I think a court might find it difficult to believe too.

@FTMDave - what concerns me about simeon's position here is that I'm beginning to think he really doesn't understand the sort of principles that lie behind any sort of claim for damages or compensation. For example, with the piling I don't see how the builder can be responsible for funding work he was never contracted to do. (Assuming he was never contracted to undertake any piling - again it would be nice to finally see the actual contract for Project 1 so we could know what was agreed... ) The best I can see simeon being able to do in respect of the piling is to recover from the builder any monies paid for underpinning that presumably the builder didn't complete. But that would be conditional on simeon having paid upfront for the underpinning and that work not being carried out by the builder. I can easliy imagine that the builder might have at least partly completed the underpinning works before the structural engineer recognised the need for piling. Either way simeon hasn't clearly explained any of this. I'm also very concerned by the discrepancy between the expert's report and simeon's scehdule of loss (which is another one I'm not sure if we've seen or not?). I can't help but worry that some of the quotes and estimates that simeon has obtained might relate to general property improvements and not to damage caused by the builder, or to work not done by the builder, or to work done badly by builder. I've just re-read a couple of documents from the builder that simeon uploaded. (I think one is the builder's defence and I've no idea what the second is or was). And I know you could say "Well the builder would say that in his defence, wouldn't he?" but the longer this thread goes on the less sure I am of simeon's position. I think they're worth re-reading. Part 20 Defendant reply.pdf claimants WS (part only) (4).pdf

[Edit: In this post I'm only addressing two issues: First, the general point of what did the contract for Project 1 actually cover, and second, whether the Project 1 contract specifically covered "piling" or just "underpinning".] Perhaps I'm mistaken but: 1. That doesn't appear to be a contract between you and your builder. It seems to be a report to you from your structural engineer. It might be that the actual contract between you and your builder refers to this report as outlining the work that needs to be done, but how are you going to persuade the court that this report from your engineer forms the basis of what your builder agreed to do? What written evidence do you have as to what you agreed with the builder? Have you got his signature on a piece of paper saying that he agrees to carry out the rectification works detailed at sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of the report from your structural engineer? Have you got your builder's signature on anything at all? Where is that part of the contract which agreed the price and what that price covered? Where is the actual contract between you and your builder? 2. I've only skimmed through that document but I can't see any reference anywhere to "piling". I can see mention of "underpinning" on page 1 of the 2 page covering letter, and at section 4.1 of the report itself, but I can't see any mention of "piling". What concerns me is that you bought a house in a state of disrepair and your structural engineer advised (inter alia) that the bay needed underpinning. You got a quote from your builder to do the underpinning and other work. You accepted that quote. As the work was ongoing it became evident that underpinning would not be enough and that the bay needed piling. You appear to be trying to blame your builder for the fact that they hadn't recognised the need for piling at an earlier stage and that they should be responsible for the cost of the piling, but that argument makes no sense. Your structural engineer advised underpinning, not piling. Presumably you obtained quotes on that basis - ie underpinning, not piling. Equally presumably your builder provided a quote based on underpinning, not piling. You accepted a quote based on underpinning not piling. I don't see how you can reasonably try to make your builder liable for the piling if he was asked to quote for underpinning, not piling. If your property actually required piling and not underpinning, the cost of that is a cost you need to bear because it's your property. Your builder didn't cause the need for and has no responsibility for it. You simply bought a property that needed piling Didn't your structural engineer alert you to the possibility that underpinning might not be sufficient and that piling might be required at an additional cost to you over and above the cost of the underpinning? (NB - are you intending using your structural engineer as a witness at all?)

You need to read the small print of the T&Cs of your order. There will almost certainly be something in there giving them a get-out in this sort of situation. Quite possibly there will be a provision explicitly stating that there is no contract between you and the dealer until something happens that won't have happened yet. If you can't find anything like that, come back here

Does anybody know for certain whether the website linked to by @Another Rob is correct? It says: YELLOW ZIG ZAG LINES WITHOUT SIGNS Yellow zig zag lines without signs to accompany them do not have a Traffic Regulation Order giving the local council powers to issue PCN fines. Therefor [sic] it is technically legal to park on yellow zig zag lines without signs at any time. However, these zig zag road markings are placed there to advise motorists not to wait or park on these lines for the safety of children and although the local council do not have the powers to enforce penalties, police frequently issue tickets in such cases. Tickets are issued on the grounds of causing an obstruction to either other motorists or pedestrians and not for parking on the yellow zig zag lines directly. Yellow Zig Zag Lines (drivingtesttips.biz) (Bits underlined and in bold my emphasis) I'm surprised it seems to be saying that local councils can't issue parking tickets but the police can for obstruction etc. I'd have thought school zig zags were no parking 24/7. Did @Another Rob get a police ticket? (Nb - As they can't even spell "therefore" I suppose the rest of the site might be rubbish too... )

Are you 100% absolutely certain/sure/positive the payment has not been made into your account referenced in the letter from Allianz? Seems odd to me that they'd send you two separate confirmations that they would pay and then fail (twice) to do so. Especially when they seem to have discussed your payment and agreed it with FSO...

@simeon1964 - the first question you ask is as follows: "Expert Report:1 Are you saying that a client should accept an incidental cost of £3000.00 unaware, after a signed agreement between both parties when the client is operating on a fixed budget and had not been forewarned by the contractor despite being privy to all the drawings of the work prior to starting." That goes to the heart of a question I have asked you several times and which you continually evade answering. What work did your builder actually agree to carry out in respect of Project 1? Did it include piling or did it only specify underpinning? This is important because the expert appears to be telling the court that they are two entirely different disciplines and that a builder who is competent to underpin might not be competent to pile. If the contract for Project 1 was based on your structural engineer's report, did it specifically say that piling might be required? Because if your engineer did not foresee that piling would be necessary, I don't see why your builder should have done. I fear either that you might be trying to blame your builder for an additional expense that nobody (including you and your structural engineer) could have foreseen, or that you are trying to blame your builder for something your structural engineer ought to have alerted you to. I asked you back in #385 if we could see Exhibit 2 from your WS which is the contract for Project 1. I want to see what it says in respect of underpinning and/or piling. If it only talks about underpinning I don't see how (on the basis of what you've told us) the builder can be responsible for your expenditure on piling.

Glad you've found a solution to your satisfaction. I'm not a lawyer (and I'm not giving you legal advice) but I'd have thought that if the same problem comes back again, then you'd be entitled to reject it as they would already have had an opportunity to rectify it and they had failed. If it's the same problem, then the one attempt they are allowed didn't work. (But wait and see what others say. Don't just rely on me as you've spent a lot of money on this purchase.) IIRC you had notified the original dealer of the problem when you took delivery of the car, plus the second dealer in Newcastle has kindly provided you with an email confirming that the fault must have been present at purchase. Those two points are both in your favour. However: (1) as I understand it, after 6 months you might only get a partial refund. I believe the original dealer will be entitled to deduct from the full refund an amount to reflect the use you have had from the car between taking delivery and you rejecting it. How that amount might be determined in respect of a £170,000 supercar, I don't know. But I suppose it might be quite a large sum. (I simply don't know). (2) I believe you said you'd acquired the car on some sort of PCP deal or similar. Whether that affects your consumer rights as I've outlined above, I simply don't know. From a consumer protection point of view the law sometimes treats outright purchases differently from things like HP and lease deals. (3) As I've posted previously, I think a £170,000 purchase is a lot of money to rely just on answers from an online forum. [Edit: One other note of caution. I'm assuming that the fault - getting your 'phone to connect to the car via Bluetooth? - would be considered a sufficiently serious fault to justify rejection if it came to it. Again I don't know. Anyway - hope the car stays good and you don't need to consider anything other than enjoying it!]