DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 6485--------------------------------------------------
Re: Coditional offer of a fixed penalty for a cord exposed
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: October 1, 2023, 9:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please don't shoot the messenger.
As I said, if you go to court you could try the approach I
suggested, though I don't realistically see it succeeding.
I've read the entire thread again and this concerns me:
... he told me he didn’t have a testing station number because
when he does MOT’s it’s done off site, at another location and
he didn’t know the station number off the top off his head,
This suggests to me that the mechanic was not an MoT tester at
all but merely took vehicles to an approved tester. I may be
wrong. If you insist on going to court you could explain all
this as well as the confusion you faced over getting the repairs
certified. I still don't see you have much of a chance of
success but you might as well throw this in as well.
On a general note, it's nothing to do with what the government
wants that may see you lose your job. Employers or their
insurers who won't allow you to drive probably do so because
they see the risk of a driver who has committed a succession of
motoring offences as not one they wish to take. If I was in your
position I would be looking for a job that did not involve
driving (or at least, one which would be possible with nine
penalty points in the past five years).
#Post#: 6684--------------------------------------------------
Re: Coditional offer of a fixed penalty for a cord exposed
DIR By: ManxTom
Date: October 4, 2023, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: carr1514 link ---
>
>
> ... What I don’t understand is, why was I given false
information at the scene by the officer.
>
> Why when originally sending this did I receive a letter back
saying if I could send supporting documentation to prove the
defect has been rectified? Why the job form, signed by the
mechanic with his company logo on it, my signature and the vans
reg isn’t proof...
>
--- End Quote ---
If you are still following this thread, what did the form the
polce office gave you actually say? Did it say that you had to
have the defect fixed by a MOT tester, and did it also say that
the number of the vehicle testing station had to be identified
on it?
If the form didn't say that the testing station number had to be
identified, then I don't see why you can't argue that you did
return the form within 21 days, but that the police wrongly
rejected it when they should have accepted it.
However, if the form said that you did have to provide the
number of the testing station then - despite what the officer
may have told you - you're on somewhat sticky ground because you
really should have followed the instructions on the form. If
the instructions differed from what the officer had told you,
your best course of action would have been to 'phone the police
and ask them what you needed to do.
Obviously you can still argue in court that the officer didn't
give you clear instructions as to what to do (and might have
inadvertantly misled you) and that you tried your best in good
faith to comply with the requirements, but that they hadn't been
clearly communicated to you.
But I think it will come down to the wording of the instructions
on the form.
By the way, I tend to agree with [member=97]NewJudge[/member].
I wonder if your mobile mechanic is a bona fide MOT tester if he
couldn't provide a testing station number?
#Post#: 7989--------------------------------------------------
Re: Coditional offer of a fixed penalty for a cord exposed
DIR By: roythebus
Date: October 21, 2023, 11:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the mobile mechanic isn't a qualified tester at all, he
repairs vehicles and takes them to a Ministry approved testing
facility where the test is carried out. It's what I used to do.
If the OP is doing deliveries as well, make sure the insurance
covers you for that. I've just been shopping around for renewal
quotes and at least 2 of them forbid the use of the vehicle for
deliveries or the carriage of passengers for hire and reward.
#Post#: 8075--------------------------------------------------
Re: Coditional offer of a fixed penalty for a cord exposed
DIR By: guest46
Date: October 22, 2023, 11:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Was the tyre defect identified (i.e were you pulled over!) on
your return from collecting it? NewJudge's opinion re the
expectation of a road-worthy vehicle may have legs if it was. If
you'd had it a while and neither felt or saw the wear, much less
so!
Was this a 'proper' rental company (Avis, Hertz etc)? Although
it won't save your bacon there's surely some reparation to be
had if they provided an unroadworthy vehicle?
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page