Hey all,
I was hoping somebody could help me with a legal query. First of all the background:
Apparently my dad received a letter claiming he did some sort of U turn or some traffic no-no. This I heard from my brother so the details I'm patchy on.
His was fined £60 so it's not going to break the bank however apparently my dad heard about a "loophole" some years ago which went along the lines of; if the letter they send you with the fine, has as incorrect description of the vehicle involved it invalidates the claim.
In my father's case the car colour was not totally correct. So he believes he can nullify the claim.
My questions to you all...
Does anyone one know anything about this "loophole"? And if so, what are the exact details of it?
Does anyone have any idea where I can look for more information regarding :
-motoring watchdogs
-motoring associations etc
Basically any independent body which can provide help or advice on this matter.
I mean my brother and I just think he should pay the fine but bless him, he nevers does anything without a fight.
Thanks in advance,
Emelia
|
You'll be VERRRRY lucky, to get off with that reason, I'd say.
Even if it were a grey car, they said silver, or blue or didn't have a clue, what name the car makers invented for the actual colour, like say, champagne pearl mist, or something just as weird!!
Best pay it!!
& no, I usually would argue, if I thought I was even , nearly right!!
VB
|
Ha ha I know. Like I said I would pay it if I were him but nevertheless, I'm still on the trail on this loophole.
I mean, what section of the law is it even in? Criminal Law I suppose.
Or, what amendment (if that's what they call it) can you find it??
Ick!
|
Why are drivers, who've committed criminal offences, so determined to find loopholes to escape prosecution?
Many of us have made mistakes, been prosecuted, learnt our lessons and are better drivers for it. Apart from our sanctimonious attitude, why can't you, and/or your father, be like us?
|
Believe me, whatever I did that was wrong and incurred a penalty if there was a legal loophole that allowed me to escape scott free I would take it.
So would most of us, martyrs are few and far between.
--
|
|
|
|
There is no legal loophole. Mis-description of the colour is not of sufficient seriousness to change the material facts.
But hey send him to a solicitor, and get charged 100 quid to find out he is still nicked but now 160 quid lighter.
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
|
Out of curiosity, what is the car's colour and what did they think it was? Merlot Red as opposed to Chardonnay Red, or something?
|
|
If the colour description close and reg plate (which counts) is right then ... just pay the fine ?
|
The authority for a No U Turn comes under a Traffic Regulation Order made under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which states:
Section 5 .? (1) A person who contravenes a traffic regulation order, or who uses a vehicle, or causes or permits a vehicle to be used in contravention of a traffic regulation order, shall be guilty of an offence.
The summons will say:
That you used a vehicle, namely a motor car Reg No.......on a road called........in contravention of a traffic regulation Order , namely (details of Order) in that you made a prohibited U Turn.
Contrary to S 5 RTRA 1984 and Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
It will be seen from the above that there are certain matters to be proved none of which mention the colour of a motor vehicle.
Minor discrepancies, even to wrong VRM, do not debar a prosecution as the Magistrates have the power to amend details on the summons. (MCA 1981)
dvd
|
Registration Certificates only state the basic colour, not the manufacturer's name for that colour.
--
L\'escargot.
|
The reason that many people look for loopholes is that the law is, in many cases, applied by cameras, not by human beings with the capabaility of exercising discretion. Also the 'letter' of the law is often applied with tickets issued for one wheel just touching the end of a double yelloe line etc. If they want to get picky and infleixible we should fight back. The army of people who do this for a living get paid plenty - Make them earn it!
|
Better still AS ...don't do the crime......
But then PU would have to take up buysking?
dvd
|
"But then PU would have to take up busking"
That is part of my career plan in 18 months time.
|
I want to see you on X factor PU.
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
"Why are drivers, who've committed criminal offences, so determined to find loopholes to escape prosecution?"
Because every other type of crime is out of control and hardly enforced or punished these days.
People are reporting and complaining about other crimes, but nobody is bothered about people committing regulatory offences such as minor safe speeding or doing a safe u-turn.
|
I agree Hamsafar. but the police and parking wardens are very bothered about the minor offences you mention, it is just that the public don't view them as a major priority when their husbands are being kicked to death by drunken, out-of parental-control, hooded chavs. See last 7 days papers for full details!
|
Dwightvanman thank you for the reply. I will pass the information on. Well maybe it is a little late but I had found out more details. Either way, no harm in posting them here.
-It was a council PCN from Wandsworth council
-The offence was code no. 50 (On street- (London only) Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn)
- The PCN described the car as grey. The car is green.
Regardless of the offense, I am still trying to isolate the leglislation that states inaccurate descriptions on PCN's makes the claim redundant.
I have a feeling that it is contained somewhere within the Road Traffic Act (1991) but it is like looking for a needle in a haystack. So I need help as to which section this could be found in.
Hope this is of more help. Thanks.
Emelia
P.S. As for the whole "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" mentality well yes I agree. On the other hand my dad is a resposible driver and it is more about me finding this on a matter of principle. £60 can easily be paid but I'd like to find out more about this matter for myself. Or with a little help from anyone who knows.
|
Emilia,
as has been stated above minor errors in description can be changed by the magistrates, so there is no loophole.
You wont find legislation that says that inaccurate descriptions makes the claim redundant. The charge is against a particular vehicle/driver . The prosecution would not be successful if the details were in a significant way incorrect - ie pics of an hgv and acting against your mini. But minor description errors will not save him.
I believe that Dwight Van Driver is a serving Police Officer.
If your father really wants to fight it then his best bet would be to check the status of the road order and the exact details of the signing. Mistakes are made on these and it would make the charge invalid if the order was not correctly done or the signs were not correctly done.
There was a case not so long ago with a no right turn (somewhere near tower bridge I think) which resulted in lots of cases being overturned. try pepipoo
|
Law in this country is ludicrous!
Go over a speed limit - you're criminal.
Don't pay council tax - go to jail.
Kill a man for nothing - you deserve to be treated fairly and hordes of people will oversee that your human right is not violated.
The law sucks!
BTW, for U turn, is it just fine or points as well?
|
Regardless of the offense I am still trying to isolate the leglislation that states inaccurate descriptions on PCN's makes the claim redundant. I have a feeling that it is contained somewhere within the Road Traffic Act (1991) but it is like looking for a needle in a haystack. So I need help as to which section this could be found in.
Emelia, as has been explained to you in this thread, you wont find it because it isnt there. There is NO legislation, clause, loophole to be used. You wont find it in the act.
The only way to dispute this is to elect NOT to accept the FPN and instead go to court to argue the case in person.
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
|
IMO mi amigo espanol is correct.
|
Dwightvanman thank you for the reply. I will pass the information on. Well maybe it is a little late but I had found out more details. Either way no harm in posting them here.
Obviously you should have gone to pepipoo.com to start with, that's the place for avoiding motoring offences.
I would request the photographic evidence for a start, say you think there might be an error, they have got the colour wrong, perhaps they got the car wrong as well.
|
Obviously you should have gone to pepipoo.com to start with that's the place for avoiding motoring offences.
oops, nm, you did
forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=22656
|
I have only heard of one instance where someone is let off due to incorrect details on the ticket:
www.strangepolice.com/content/item/16799.html
:)
|
|
|
|
Emelia, I think you've been a bit unfortunate in that yours has coincided with a few similar posts regarding the 'ethics' of contesting alleged offences vs. bragging about them vs. 'taking it like a man' etc, so some replies have been a little curt.
On balance, I would think it unlikely that you'll find any sections within the legislation devoted to 'and here are the loopholes'.......
Has your father actually admitted to committing the offence?
|
AS is right, these camera NIPs offend those born in a more formal and elegant age during much of which half the world was trying to kill the other half.
Seems mean and snivelling somehow, and so dishonest and greedy in overall conception and detailed administration that a bit of wriggling and struggling to get out of paying these fines seems almost a moral obligation. And I don't feel squeamish about people telling porkies to these carphounds either. About some things yes, but not about illicit U-turns, parking offences, putting a wheel in a bus lane and so on. Any sane person can tell the difference.
|
Any sane person can tell the difference.
A bit telegraphic here, sorry. I mean the difference between an issue which engages one's moral consciousness and respect for the law, and one that is too irksomely trivial to have the weight of law behind it, and should be batted impatiently aside.
|
emelia86
For a moving decriminalised traffic offence enforced by LA you will have had their ticket which has to contain details of what offence committed. On that ticket will be other details as to VRM, make, and colour. A mistake with the VRM and maybe make may well give grounds for appeal but IMHO not colour.
You either accept and pay or make representation to LA as to why the ticket is invalid.
Unlike a parking contravention LA will not send out a Notice to Owner, their first ticket for a moving traffic offence acts as such.
LA will either accept and cancel or send you Notice of Rejection of Representation.
You either pay, now at the enhanced rate, or take it further to the Parking Adjudicator, the proceedure for which will be shown on the Notice of Rejection.
I am of the opinion that just on wrong colour alone you are not going to gain any sympathy from a Parking Adjudicator.
dvd
PS. A retired 30 year Plod who spent 22 years at various ranks on Traffic and to relieve the boredom of retirement tries to keep abreast of traffic law and matters.
|
DVD posted what I was just thinking only much more succinctly.
OP might find some guidance in the Annual Reports or decided cases on the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service website - but I think they'll confirm the view that colour blind camera ops are no get out.
|
Update
On 19th July 2007 The London Local Authorities Act 2007 received Royal Assent.
Wef from 19th September 2007 the following is law:
Section 61. A penalty charge notice under this section
MUST STATE
(i) the grounds on which the council believe that the penalty charge is payable;
(ii) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(iv) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
(vi) the amount of the increased charge;
(vii) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and
(viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under subsection (1) of section 62 (representations and appeals) of this Act; and
(b) specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.
this is in confirmation of what was in the Road Traffic Act 1991.
Few bits of information missing? Colour for one.
dvd
|
|
|
|
