How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Nicola-mod Your Own Question
Nicola-mod
Nicola-mod, Moderator
Category: Traffic Law
Satisfied Customers: 21
Experience:  Moderator
73944119
Type Your Traffic Law Question Here...
Nicola-mod is online now

10 days ago i was found guilty

Customer Question

10 days ago i was found guilty of "failing provide my wife's first name under s172.
the car was "yellow box" photoed at 38 in a 30 zone. I as registered owner replied to all CPU letters with my full details and this statement. "My wife and i are retired and are the only two people who ever drive our car. (plus only ones named on insurance). BUT the incident was very local at a spot that we drive through many times a week, we both drive equally, and are 70yrs with poor memories for basic daily events (we only manage by writing every thing down). We both have clear licences and have no motive to try to blame the other. I said although i cant be sure i will accept it could most likely be me as my wife feels it was less likely to be her but neither of us are 100% certain. The CPU said they cannot accept my acceptance of blame unless i was 100% sure. I said they were asking me to commit perjury. I went to court charged with failing to furnish and swore on oath i cant fully remember (not even the journey although my wife and i have tried our utmost). The magistrates said i was a very credible witness. But was guilty as they agreed with CPU that "I had failed to tell them my wife's first name"
i wasn't represented but would have argued 1) They already had my wife's first name from the insurance details. The ACT says "supply name/address of driver" or "any other information which is in your power to give which would lead to his/her identification" And show full due diligence to obtain it. I maintain i did this to the full. It seems to me the CPU are claiming though my wife's first name was freely available to them as a named driver on the insurance records as supplied by me, they opted to ignore that and chose to waste the courts time to get a virtual automatic conviction and £635 costs and 6 points as revenge. As that they also arrived in court with an additional statement showing that i had twice previously said "I cant remember" to similar local 30 mph incidents. (2008 & 2011). ( i think i managed to stop them putting this before the Magistrates). The point is they cant accept I/we genuinely cant remember stuff and their is no legal requirements for individuals to keep a driving log. i cant afford legal representation (i am paying off £195 fine and £635 costs at £10 mth now). Question is am i better asking them to review the guilty decision on the basis of "having done full due diligence to the limit of my capabilities" and having supplied all the information needed for them to identify the only other possible driver. thank you tonyjohnsXXX
Submitted: 2 years ago.
Category: Traffic Law
Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
Thank you for your question. My name is ***** ***** I will try to help with this
What steps did you take to ascertain who was driving?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
MY wife and i discussed the situation at length. Neither of us could remember the actual journey. But because of the location and time given we could only assume it was a minor supermarket trip, my wife favours Aldi in town. Their are no other family or friends to talk to as no one else was involved.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
Did you check your diaries?
Check your accounts to see who spent money on that day and where?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
NEITHER OF US HAVE DIARIES We pay cash 90% of the time. In any case we would have been together in the car that 90% also but its a genuine 50/50 as to who may have been driving. Likely one going and the other coming back or vice versa.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
Yes, I do understand but the trouble with this is this.
You would have received the original NIP within 14 days of the offence. I realise that you won't know off hand who was driving on that particular date but it is possible for all of us to say with reasonable effort to investigate.
Even if you paid cash, did you check who drew out the money? There would be a record.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
we are 70 yrs old we got to the post office at the begining of the week draw out our old age pensions and it lasts us to the next week. Anything left over is put to one side. Now and again we go to the bank and put in or take out cash. Direct debits take care of utlities.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
we open a cupboard and stand looking inside trying to remember why we opened it. Dont laugh you may get here one day.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
OK.
The reason you have been convicted is that they are saying you didn't take adequate steps to investigate this.
You do have a right of appeal to the Crown Court within 21 days of sentence. The risk is that it will rack up costs if you lose again.
In fact, there is case law that says that when a person names the potential drivers it is for the police to investigate which is the culprit but it is a case that turned on different facts and courts do generally try to kick it into the long grass if they can.
The difficulty with this is that you are asking a court to accept that on a date less than two weeks since an incident you could not say who was driving your car. If I give you a ridiculous example it might help to make the point. Drivers say that they cannot say who was driving all the time. If the allegation against the driver of a vehicle were that he was hanging around outside schools trying to abduct small children then the registered keeper would find out fast enough who the driver was however long ago it was. The reason that some of them say that they cannot is that they just take the view that speeding is not a serious offence which is fine but it is not the test. That is not to say that in every case a driver cannot raise this defence but it does meet with some cynicism from the Courts generally.
If you are intent then you do have a right of appeal. In truth, I wouldn't put this on the basis that you took every step you could. A court would say that you have not I think. The way I would run this is to rely on the case of DPP v Jones which says it is for the police to investigate once the potential drivers are named. The case in question though involved a person who had set out that the driver was either A [name and address] or B [ name and address] and stapled it to the S172 form so the court said it had been adopted by the form. Usually people dont' do that and the way the court escapes it is to make distinctions between DPP v Jones and the instant case on that basis.
Can I clarify anything for you?
Jo
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
1) Tell me something ELSE that i could have done the circumstances are such that i have very limited scope.
2) I am not trying to avoid any responsibility i have said that as far as i can say IT WAS ME because my wife is more sure it wasn't her. BUT the CPU wont accept that unless i am 100% sure, and I cant be 100%. neither can my wife.
My bad memory and inability to retain things does not greatly impair my reasoning ability.
The case spins on a) did i do my best to supply details of other possible drivers. ANS YES. i said my WIFE (i only have one) (they know her sir name and address) I said that ONLY the two of us ever drive the car and are so insured. My wife is the only other FULLY NAMED driver on the insurance this information they have from the data i supplied at the first time of asking. I understand their position BUT that does not alter the FACTS if they cant PROVE their case it is not for me to admit something (although i have for the sake of moving on) with 100% conviction just to make up for their lack of real evidence. They are pedantically refusing to accept a less than 100% confession. Because the LAW wont allow them to. Now where does that leave me? I have to satisfy the court that i have done my best i repeat tell me what else can i do?
I have answered your questions you answer mine.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
DPP V Jones was a public order offence not a S 172 offence so either i have the wrong case or struggle to see the relevance
Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
Ok.
Good luck with this.
I don't think I can add much so will opt out.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
. THE ORIGINAL WAS WHICH YOU HAVE FAILED ADDRESS COMPLETELY Question is am i better asking them to review the guilty decision on the basis of "having done full due diligence to the limit of my capabilities" and having supplied all the information needed for them to identify the only other possible driver. thank you***@******.***
Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
Thanks.
I have opted out.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
thanks and finally how do i go about having the VERDICT re-reviewed in the Magistrates Court. and will this reduce my costs liability by avoiding the crown court. or do you believe i would receive a better understanding before a Judge.
Expert:  Nicola-mod replied 2 years ago.
Hello,
It seems the professional has left this conversation. This happens occasionally, and it's usually because the professional thinks that someone else might be a better match for your question. I've been working hard to find a new professional to assist you with your question, but sometimes finding the right professional can take a little longer than expected.
I wonder whether you're OK with continuing to wait for an answer. If you are, please let me know and I will continue my search. If not, feel free to let me know and I will cancel this question for you.
Thank you!
Nicola
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
no thank you. I wish to withdraw from your services altogether. I am very uncomfortable with the dishonest way i have been drawn into your net. I do not want a weeks "free" trial. i have instructed my credit card company to refuse the first payment.
I am very unhappy with your reluctance to cancel. I want a permanent END to my involvement with you NOW and forever NOT a switch on and off arrangement that you seem to think is ok. The only good thing you can now do is REMOVE ALL my details from your system STOP the payment and email me again to confirm that has been done. After that i do not want to hear from you again.