DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 112951--------------------------------------------------
Re: 35MPH in a 30MPH section of Bath Road, London. SJPN received
(with a twist ?)
DIR By: BertB
Date: March 12, 2026, 5:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: estevenin link ---
>
> Is that process even legal ? If it is, then technically the
Met Police doesn't have to send any conditional offer even to
motorists when they exceed the speed limits, and they could just
charge 2.5x what they would charge normally ?
>
> An organized racket scheme ?
>
--- End Quote ---
Correct. The Met do not have to send out a COFP to anyone. It is
a system to enable the fast processing of motorists that meet
the criteria to be offered one and are willing to accept guilt.
They could just send all of them to SJPN, albeit quickly
overwhelming the system I would suspect.
Looking at the time line in your case, I would say more of a
disorganised racket if anything.
Obviously there is another cunning way to beat the system.
#Post#: 113087--------------------------------------------------
Re: 35MPH in a 30MPH section of Bath Road, London. SJPN received
(with a twist ?)
DIR By: estevenin
Date: March 12, 2026, 7:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: NewJudge link ---
>
> Did you mention the fact that you did not receive the Fixed
Penalty offer when you responded to your SJPN?
--- End Quote ---
Yes I did. Exactly as discussed above and removing the extra
paragraphs.
--- Quote from: NewJudge link ---
> The police have no obligation to offer a fixed penalty at all.
It is entirely at their discretion. They could, if they wanted
to, simply proceed to prosecute every alleged offender.
--- End Quote ---
That is shocking, to say the least.
--- Quote from: NewJudge link ---
> That said, £240 costs is a bit steep. It’s normally around
£100 (assuming you entered a guilty plea).Have you asked the
court why this is?
--- End Quote ---
Yes it was a guilty plea. No I didn't ask, I entered the plea
online, and I just received this by post. Is there a way to ask
?
--- Quote from: Southpaw82 link ---
>
> I’m not sure the costs/fine are the right way round.
>
--- End Quote ---
Made a typo in the costs, but the total is still what I
mentionned :
- 3 points
- 99GBP fine
- 130GBP costs
- 40GBP victim surcharge
Total : 269GBP
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> However, without knowing whether the OP pled guilty, or what
income (if any) he disclosed, this is getting close to the level
of pointless speculation I have been known to criticise others
for.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes it was a guilty plea. I disclosed a net income of around
15k, which was my last year's income. However the system didn't
allow for attachments, so I couldn't send any evidence of it.
The whole paper only mentions the sum that I specified above,
with only one single note at the bottom from the judge I assume
:
"Guilty plea taken into account when imposing sentence."
(It does not say income taken into account when imposing
sentence)
--- Quote from: BertB link ---
>
> I would say more of a disorganised racket if anything.
Obviously there is another cunning way to beat the system.
>
--- End Quote ---
Indeed, makes me feel completely helpless as I'm not sure what
could have been done differently. Sounds like the system is not
made to be beaten.
I'm assuming there's no way to complain/appeal to overturn that
judgement ? I read that there could be 2 options :
1. Appeal at the Crown Court. Would that be even worth it ? I
assume there's a cost to it, and perhaps they could decide to
put an even worst sentence / points for wasting their time ?
2. Fill in a MC100 form and send it to the court for review. I
assume that this process is free and risk free ?
In any of those 2 cases, I suppose that I should not pay and
instead ask for a pause of enforcement. Option 2 sounds like the
best course of action.
Thank you all again for your feedback, I'm all hears if that
sounds like something I should do or not.
#Post#: 113101--------------------------------------------------
Re: 35MPH in a 30MPH section of Bath Road, London. SJPN received
(with a twist ?)
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: March 13, 2026, 4:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Now that you have corrected the figures it seems about right for
a sentence according to the normal Magistrates’ guidelines. £15k
pa is getting on for £300 pw. The guideline sentence is half a
week’s net income (£150) reduced by a third for your guilty plea
- £100. So it was right if your declared income was around
£14.850. The Surcharge is fixed at 40% of the fine and the
costs, whilst a little high, are not outrageous (they vary from
area to area).
The court decided to decline your request to sentence you at the
FP level, which they’re entitled to do.
Your attempted remedy would be to ask the court to re-open your
case under s142 of the Magistrates’ Court Act. Filling in a
MC100 is not the answer as it seems your income has a been
properly taken into account. Your request should be that the
court should consider again whether to sentence you to the FP
equivalent. This is risk free.
Do not go near the Crown Court under any circumstances. The last
time I looked the cost of a failed appeal in the Crown Court was
more than £1,500. That was some time ago. There is certainly no
guarantee of success in either court, but the first option I
outlined will cost nothing except a bit of your time.
You must bear in mind that there has been nothing sinister or
outrageous in any of this. The police had no option but to
prosecute you when you failed to take up the FP(whether that was
heir fault or yours) and the court is entitled to sentence you
in accordance with the normal guidelines if they think fit. They
have guidance which suggests they might sentence you at the FP
level if they believe it is just to do so and it is that aspect
which you need to concentrate on.
#Post#: 113185--------------------------------------------------
Re: 35MPH in a 30MPH section of Bath Road, London. SJPN received
(with a twist ?)
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: March 13, 2026, 3:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
When courts sentence at an equivalent level to a Fixed Penalty,
they generally either set the fine at £100 and add the
prosecution costs and the surcharge, or they bundle it all
together and set a fine such that the total comes to
approximately the level of the fixed penalty. It is a very long
time since we heard of the second option happening - so
effectively you were fined at £1 below fixed penalty level. The
costs, as has been mentioned, are higher than we are used to
seeing for a guilty pea, but far closer to the normal amount
than they are to the amount you previously claimed were awarded.
#Post#: 113222--------------------------------------------------
Re: 35MPH in a 30MPH section of Bath Road, London. SJPN received
(with a twist ?)
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: March 14, 2026, 5:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Whilst the court can avoid ordering prosecution costs, it cannot
avoid imposing the “Victim Surcharge”. The usual way to impose a
sentence at the FP equivalent (so that “The offender should not
be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice…”)
is to adjust the fine so that, together with the surcharge, it
comes to the FP equivalent. For a £100 FP this would mean a fine
of £72 and a surcharge of £28.
I’m quite sure the court in this case has simply sentenced in
accordance with the normal guidelines and declined to sentence
at the FP level.
#Post#: 113223--------------------------------------------------
Re: 35MPH in a 30MPH section of Bath Road, London. SJPN received
(with a twist ?)
DIR By: roythebus
Date: March 14, 2026, 5:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I suspect the courts take a more serious view of professional
drivers breaking the law. I know driving these days is a
nightmare with the plethora of signs and poor traffic management
systems designed to reduce casualties, most of which do anything
but that.
I suggest you be more aware of speed limits in future or you'll
be of the rod for 6 months and your PH licencing office will be
taking a look at revoking your licence. Make sure you inform
them of your current status, if they find out via other methods
they can revoke your PH licence. Double jeopardy I'm sorry to
say.
#Post#: 113357--------------------------------------------------
Re: 35MPH in a 30MPH section of Bath Road, London. SJPN received
(with a twist ?)
DIR By: BertB
Date: March 16, 2026, 4:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: roythebus link ---
>
> I suggest you be more aware of speed limits in future
--- End Quote ---
Cough
--- Quote from: roythebus link ---
>
> I couldn't get an SAC as the last one was 2 years and 50 weeks
ago! I seem to get nicked every 3 years, always late at night
with nothing else around.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 113669--------------------------------------------------
Re: 35MPH in a 30MPH section of Bath Road, London. SJPN received
(with a twist ?)
DIR By: estevenin
Date: March 18, 2026, 10:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: roythebus link ---
>
> I suggest you be more aware of speed limits in future. Make
sure you inform them of your current status, if they find out
via other methods they can revoke your PH licence. Double
jeopardy I'm sorry to say.
>
--- End Quote ---
I already do just that. On a long enough timeline, with a full
time driving jobs and speed limits changing overnight little by
little, it is simply unavoidable and that is by design (as well
as regular PCN's too). Bath road seems to have recently dropped
from 40 to 30MPH in some sections. I proactively informed TFL
and got their feedback so hopefully that should be sorted.
Thank you all for your feedback, I will go the S142 route. Wrote
a new draft and will send it tomorrow, this is Lavender Hill so
at SJS[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk (I think that's the
correct one, I'll probably CC it to the enquiries one too.
It is also possible that the court simply didn't read the full
plea, and automatically applied the standard procedure for a
guilty plea. I'm assuming they must have hundreds of cases to
deal with everyday, so they perhaps overlooked my mitigation
statement.
I haven't mentionned once again the email from Laura Drury, not
sure if I should still set it aside or not, in doubt, I didn't
include it :
--- Quote ---
> Dear Clerk to the Justices,
>
> I am writing to formally apply for my case (Ref: ) to be
re-opened under Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980,
in the interests of justice.
>
> 1. On 3rd March 2026, I was sentenced to a total financial
penalty of £269 for a speeding offence: exceeding a 30 mph speed
limit (recorded at 35 mph). I believe the Court has erred by
failing to apply the Sentencing Council’s guidance regarding
'Fixed Penalty Equivalents.'
>
> In my original mitigation, it was submitted that:
>
> 2. I was eligible to receive a Conditional Offer of Fixed
Penalty, as my recorded speed was well within the acceptable
threshold for such an offer.
>
> 3. I never received any Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty.
While the Metropolitan Police witness statement claims one was
issued, I state categorically that it was never served at my
address.
>
> 4. The Sentencing Council guidance states: “Where a penalty
notice was not offered... for reasons unconnected with the
offence... the court should consider imposing a penalty
equivalent to the fixed penalty.”
>
> 5. The current sentence of £269 puts me at a significant
disadvantage compared to the £100 Fixed Penalty I would have
accepted had I received the offer. Furthermore, based on my
previous year’s net income of £15,391, this fine represents
approximately 1.75% of my total annual income, which is
disproportionately high for this level of offence.
>
> 6. I respectfully ask that the Court re-opens the case to
adjust the fine, costs, and victim surcharge to match the Fixed
Penalty Equivalent (a total of £100), as per the judicial
guidelines.
>
> I am not seeking to overturn the conviction (the 3 points),
but rather to rectify an error in sentencing. According to the
Sentencing Council’s 'Explanatory Material,' the Court should
ensure an offender is not disadvantaged by the unavailability of
a penalty notice. To achieve the Fixed Penalty Equivalent of
£100, I propose the following structure: a fine of £72 and a
victim surcharge of £28, with prosecution costs waived, as costs
are not applicable in a standard Fixed Penalty scenario.
>
> I also request a Stay of Execution on the current collection
order while this application is considered.
>
> I look forward to your response regarding a hearing date or a
decision by a Single Justice to rectify this sentence.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 113715--------------------------------------------------
Re: 35MPH in a 30MPH section of Bath Road, London. SJPN received
(with a twist ?)
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: March 19, 2026, 7:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph 5 is misleading. The fine was not £269 – that is the
total with surcharge and costs included. An income of £15,391 is
£296pw. Half of that is £148 and a third off that for your
guilty plea is £99. So with £40 surcharge and £130 costs, it is
absolutely spot on for sentencing at the normal level.
You should note that the guidance only suggests that the court
should consider sentencing at the FP level, not that it must. It
is entirely a judicial decision whether or not to do so. I have
to say that I see no reason why they should not, but courts do
not like being dictated to. I would alter the tone slightly.
I would also leave out the final paragraph. Magistrates are
perfectly aware of the guidelines and of the mechanism used to
arrive at a sentence at the FP equivalent.
The process for this is that your request will first be screened
by an administrator. Be prepared to meet some resistance to your
request. I notice that, helpfully, you have not used the word
“appeal”. This is the usual reason for declining o put a request
before the court and usually results in a form to appeal in the
Crown Court being supplied. Only the court can decide whether or
not to re-open your case. It is a judicial decision to be taken
by Magistrates, not an administrative one to be taken by a
clerk. You must persevere if you meet that resistance.
There will be a hearing firstly to decide whether or not to
re-open your case and, if that goes in your favour, another to
consider whether or not to set aside the sentence and impose a
different one. he court will combine these two hearings, and you
will be asked to attend.
You should note that they are separate decisions. If the court
decides against reopening your case, that is the end of the
matter. If they do decide to reopen, this does not necessarily
mean they will reverse the first court’s decision.
#Post#: 113786--------------------------------------------------
Re: 35MPH in a 30MPH section of Bath Road, London. SJPN received
(with a twist ?)
DIR By: estevenin
Date: March 19, 2026, 7:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the guidance. I have modified paragraph 5, removed
the last one, and toned down the whole draft to sound more like
a request.
Noted that the court has to be the one dealing with that, I will
insist if they refuse to pass it through.
That's all sent, I will phone up the enforcement team tomorrow,
to see if they can pause the collection in the meantime.
I'll keep this post updated.
Thanks again.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page