DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 46823--------------------------------------------------
STAMP OOD
DIR By: wiljand
Date: November 24, 2024, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
We received a speeding fine for myself in my wife's car a couple
of months ago. We sent back the initial form to say that we
would pay the fine and do the speed awareness course. After a
month or 2 we received the documents back from the post office
as the stamp was out of date (didn't even know that was a
thing!). It just so happens that the day after we got the court
documents.
My question really is how to plea to the secondary charge of not
supplying driver details? Obviously we did attempt to in good
faith do this.... Just not sure it's worth the fight?
#Post#: 46825--------------------------------------------------
Re: STAMP OOD
DIR By: 666
Date: November 24, 2024, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is no "We" in this.
Presumably your wife is the registered keeper, received the
initial notice, and has now received the SJPN. But you were
driving. Is that correct?
If so, she must plead NOT guilty to the speeding charge.
For the "fail to furnish details" charge she may be best simply
pleading guilty, to minimise the fine and costs, while giving a
brief explanation in the Mitigation section of the form.
See what others think
#Post#: 46826--------------------------------------------------
Re: STAMP OOD
DIR By: wiljand
Date: November 24, 2024, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for the reply! Yeah that is the case.
So frustrating as we obviously sent back the letter (even had
the marked envelope). Tried talking to Hampshire police but they
are not willing to reconsider and just say 'go to the
courts'....
So she needs to plead not guilty to the initial and then probs
guilty to second and put in some explantation?
#Post#: 46830--------------------------------------------------
Re: STAMP OOD
DIR By: 666
Date: November 24, 2024, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: wiljand link ---
>
>
> So she needs to plead not guilty to the initial and then probs
guilty to second and put in some explantation?
>
--- End Quote ---
She MUST plead NG to speeding. First, she isn't guilty! Second,
the police have no evidence to convict anyone, since they don't
know who was driving.
As for the other charge, wait for some other views.
#Post#: 46839--------------------------------------------------
Re: STAMP OOD
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: November 24, 2024, 7:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Received wisdom says that the only issue is the s. 172 charge
(as indicated above).
The issue regarding the s. 172 charge is whether or not it was
reasonably practicable to provide the information - which would
appear to boil down to whether the court accept that she did not
know that RM had reneged on non-barcoded stamps, and possibly
whether they somehow consider that she ought to have known.
For the sake of completeness...
S. 172(7)(b) RTA 1988 provides that it is a defence if it was
not reasonably practicable to provide the information, or that
it was not reasonably practicable to provide the information
within the 28 days and that it was provided as soon as was
reasonably practicable afterwards.
Received wisdom says that once the s. 172 charge has been
raised, the clock stops - so the second part is of no
application in this case.
Case law regarding service of the NIP on the RK is that it is
served when it is delivered (which is deemed to be 2 working
days after posting first class unless the contrary is proven) -
Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside. This would seem to apply
equally to the s. 172 response - if RM declined to deliver it
(ignoring the question of whether a depricated stamp constituted
sending by first class post), then it was not served and the
information was not given. Which brings us back to the defence
under s. 172(7)(b).
Reasonable practicability/diligence would not generally extend
to checking something that you reasonably assumed you had no
reason to check, or taking steps to rectify something that you
reasonably assumed you had no reason to rectify.
#Post#: 46844--------------------------------------------------
Re: STAMP OOD
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: November 24, 2024, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Reasonable practicability/diligence would not generally extend
to checking something that you reasonably assumed you had no
reason to check, or taking steps to rectify something that you
reasonably assumed you had no reason to rectify.
--- End Quote ---
The problem I see with that is [the court may consider] that,
assuming it was a non-barcoded stamp, there can be few people in
the country who do not know that they are no longer valid (and
have not been so for more than a year). The OP's wife will have
to convince them that she is one of those few.
--- Quote ---
> My question really is how to plea to the secondary charge of
not supplying driver details?
--- End Quote ---
She should be aware that the consequences of a conviction for
"failing to provide driver's details" are not trivial. This is
by no means a "secondary" charge. Indeed it is now the only
charge that will succeed and it carries a harsher penalty than
speeding. With a guilty plea she will pay a fine of a week's net
income. She will also pay a "victim surcharge" of 40% of that
fine and costs of around £90.
As well as that she will have six points imposed on her driving
record, but the biggest penalty of all is that she will have an
endorsement code (MS90) which gives insurers a fit of the
vapours. She will see considerably increased premiums for up to
five years.
If she pleads not guilty but is convicted following a trial, the
fine will increase to 1.5 week's net income and the costs could
be as much as £650.
#Post#: 46931--------------------------------------------------
Re: STAMP OOD
DIR By: wiljand
Date: November 25, 2024, 6:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
When we submit The SJPN can we attach evidence online?
#Post#: 46955--------------------------------------------------
Re: STAMP OOD
DIR By: wiljand
Date: November 25, 2024, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
Below is my mitigating response. If anyone is able to give
feedback on whether this sounds reasonable it would be much
appreciated,
Mitigating Circumstances
I would like to provide a detailed explanation and timeline of
events that led to the NIP/172 form not being received by
Hampshire Constabulary, and the subsequent discovery that I was
not driving at the time of the offense.
28.06.2024 – I received the NIP/172 Reminder Letter. Based on my
recollection, as my husband and I had shared the driving on a
return journey from holiday, I believed I was the driver at the
time of the alleged speeding offense. I completed the form
accordingly, naming myself as the driver.
09.07.2024 – I returned the completed NIP/172 form to the
Summary Justice Unit, Hampshire & Isle of Wight Constabulary,
using a First Class stamp from a booklet we had at home.
05.11.2024 – I received the completed NIP/172 form back from
Royal Mail, marked as undeliverable. The reason cited was that
the stamp was “No Longer Valid for Postage.” I later learned
that since 31 July 2023, Royal Mail had invalidated non-barcoded
stamps.
The returned envelope included my original addressed envelope
(see Appendix A), with markings indicating that the addressee
had not collected it from the sorting office. This suggests that
the form did not reach Hampshire Constabulary due to the expired
stamp.
Neither my husband nor I frequently use postal services, as our
work is conducted online. When completing and sending the form,
we were unaware of this change in postal requirements, leading
to the unfortunate use of an expired stamp.
05.11.2024 (same day) – Upon receiving the returned NIP/172
form, I immediately attempted to rectify the issue. I contacted
Hampshire Constabulary through various channels (phone,
Facebook, Twitter, and their website) to explain the
circumstances and seek guidance.
06.11.2024 – I coincidentally received a Single Justice
Procedure Notice (SJPN) from HMCTS Crime. This letter included
photographic evidence of the vehicle at the time of the offense,
which showed that my husband, not I, was driving. I contacted
HMCTS immediately and was advised to first reach out to
Hampshire Constabulary to explain the situation.
07.11.2024 – Hampshire Constabulary responded to my email and
online submission, informing me that I would need to proceed
through the court system to address the matter.
Additional Context
I would like to respectfully highlight the following points:
Section 172(7)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 – This clause
provides a defense if it was not "reasonably practicable" to
provide the required information within the specified timeframe.
I took all reasonable steps to comply with the NIP/172
requirements, completing and posting the form on 09.07.2024.
However, the postal error caused by my use of an expired stamp—a
mistake I was unaware of at the time—was beyond my control.
Upon receiving the returned form on 05.11.2024, I acted
immediately to address the situation, contacting Hampshire
Constabulary and later responding to the SJPN.
Efforts to Correct the Driver Identification – After reviewing
the photographic evidence included with the SJPN, it became
clear that my husband was driving at the time of the offense.
While I originally completed the NIP/172 form based on my best
recollection at the time, I am now able to provide accurate
information regarding the driver.
This discrepancy was an honest mistake, as my husband and I
shared driving responsibilities during our return journey from
holiday, and the form was completed in good faith.
Postal Error Due to Expired Stamp – The invalidation of
non-barcoded stamps in July 2023 was an administrative change I
was unaware of. As I rarely use postal services, I unknowingly
attached an expired stamp, which led to the form being
undelivered.
The returned envelope and its markings (see Appendix A) clearly
show that my attempt to send the form was made in good faith.
I took immediate corrective steps upon discovering this issue,
demonstrating my commitment to resolving the matter.
Request for Consideration
I hope the court will consider the unforeseen postal issue and
my honest mistake in initially identifying myself as the driver.
It was never my intention to avoid responsibility or to delay
the process. I have made every effort to rectify the situation
promptly upon realizing the issues and remain fully cooperative
in providing accurate information.
Thank you for your understanding and consideration in reviewing
these mitigating circumstances.
#Post#: 46958--------------------------------------------------
Re: STAMP OOD
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: November 25, 2024, 9:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
1. Use a British English spell checker (e.g. “offence” not
“offense”).
2. That is not mitigation, it is a defence. If I read that,
sitting as a judge, I would refuse to accept the guilty plea as
it is equivocal.
#Post#: 46961--------------------------------------------------
Re: STAMP OOD
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: November 25, 2024, 9:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think that the OP has indicated that they intend to
plead guilty, beyond drafting "mitigation".
That said, I would happily string the OP from the nearest lamp
post (well perhaps not the nearest - preferably somewhere
downwind) for continuing to adopt the persona of "we", and for
drip feeding the fact that the nomination that was not served
was also incorrect.
I would perhaps add that if anyone has any wizard wheezes, they
can keep them to themselves, or I will need to find more lamp
posts.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page