OT speeding fine

#21

Dave wrote:

Quote:

On 27 Oct, 10:22, Willy Eckerslyke <oss108no_s... (AT) bangor (DOT) ac.uk> wrote:

Plus all the hassle of telling them, etc. Go on a speed awareness course
and the matter's finished; no prosecution, no paperwork, just an
afternoon being patronised.

I do not know what I am taking about like, but do not insurance
companies ask if you have any driving convictions, not if you have
points? So I would expect to have to tell them about a speeding
ticket that resulted in a speed awareness course as much as if it
resulted in 3 points.

Don't take my word for it, but it's my understanding that no prosecution
means no conviction. Also, the course instructor specifically told my
wife's group that they didn't need to inform their insurance co.

I should have added above that you do need to _pass_ the course in order
for the prosecution to be dropped.

#22

Willy Eckerslyke <oss108no_spam (AT) bangor (DOT) ac.uk> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Quote:

I do not know what I am taking about like, but do not insurance
companies ask if you have any driving convictions, not if you have
points? So I would expect to have to tell them about a speeding ticket
that resulted in a speed awareness course as much as if it resulted in
3 points.

Don't take my word for it, but it's my understanding that no prosecution
means no conviction.

Strictly speaking, an FPN isn't a "prosecution" - it's an alternative to
a prosecution, as is a course.

The simples wording on a certain car insurance comparison website says...
"Please list any motoring convictions in the last 5 years. If unsure,
conviction details can be found on your driving licence."

#23

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:12:37 +0000, Adrian wrote:

Quote:

Willy Eckerslyke <oss108no_spam (AT) bangor (DOT) ac.uk> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

I do not know what I am taking about like, but do not insurance
companies ask if you have any driving convictions, not if you have
points? So I would expect to have to tell them about a speeding
ticket that resulted in a speed awareness course as much as if it
resulted in 3 points.

Don't take my word for it, but it's my understanding that no
prosecution means no conviction.

Strictly speaking, an FPN isn't a "prosecution" - it's an alternative to
a prosecution, as is a course.

The simples wording on a certain car insurance comparison website
says... "Please list any motoring convictions in the last 5 years. If
unsure, conviction details can be found on your driving licence."

Most policies have a clause about material disclosure, requiring that
they are informed about anything that might affect their risk.

Would not the act of having been caught speeding, regardless of whether
the outcome was a conviction or a course, count as affecting the risk?

Chris

--
Remove prejudice to reply.

#24

Chris Whelan <cawhelan (AT) prejudicentlworld (DOT) com> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Quote:

The simples wording on a certain car insurance comparison website
says... "Please list any motoring convictions in the last 5 years. If
unsure, conviction details can be found on your driving licence."

Most policies have a clause about material disclosure, requiring that
they are informed about anything that might affect their risk.

Would not the act of having been caught speeding, regardless of whether
the outcome was a conviction or a course, count as affecting the risk?

Given the negligible increase in premium, I suspect not - but, equally,
there's little to lose by doing so.

OTOH, it could be argued that "if unsure, details can be found on your
licence" suggests that they feel a course is not relevant.

#25

Chris Whelan wrote:

Quote:

Would not the act of having been caught speeding, regardless of whether
the outcome was a conviction or a course, count as affecting the risk?

Presumably those running the courses would argue that they are turning
dodgy drivers into safer ones, thus reducing the risk. If speeding fines
were a true deterrent, you could claim the same about them, but I know
too many repeat offenders to believe that.

#26

Redwood wrote:

Quote:

"Paul" <Paul1232hssspam (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:7khjnvF3a0ho7U1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net...
Paul Cummins wrote:
In article <f207e5tfarcl7d1br4n0r1i5q790k5cs0n (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
iandalziel (AT) lineone (DOT) net (Ian Dalziel) wrote:

If you mean they need proof of receipt, then you are indeed wrong, as
you say.
You miss the point. There is plenty of case law that posting it on day 14
is not good enough.
Then you'll be able to post a link to one?

Nicholson v Tapp

A disagree of counting only..

If the offence is day 1, then the fourteenth day will still be valid
If you count 14 days AFTER the offence you are quite correct.

I was taking the countdown as starting at the moment of the offence.

Quote:

The OP could easily argue that they did not post it in time to arrive "in
the normal course of post" before day 15, and thus it was not served -
his rebuttal of their presumption should be sufficient.

No, you miss the point - you are just wrong - take a trip to uk.legal if
in any doubt.
Courts are quite happy to accept fact it was posted as 'served'.
They have 14 days to procees the demand and stick it in the post, whether
the driver gets it or not is another matter - eg all the lease cars where
it bounces around from leasing company, to company secretary of users
works, and finally to driver. Do you suggest that if its delayed in the
internal mail its invalid?

Until the NiP has been properly served to whoever details are held at DVLA
it's irralevant who the driver is at this stage. The 14 days only applies to
the inital NiP.

#27

On 27 Oct 2009 12:12:37 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Willy Eckerslyke <oss108no_spam (AT) bangor (DOT) ac.uk> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

I do not know what I am taking about like, but do not insurance
companies ask if you have any driving convictions, not if you have
points? So I would expect to have to tell them about a speeding ticket
that resulted in a speed awareness course as much as if it resulted in
3 points.

Don't take my word for it, but it's my understanding that no prosecution
means no conviction.

Strictly speaking, an FPN isn't a "prosecution" - it's an alternative to
a prosecution, as is a course.

The simples wording on a certain car insurance comparison website says...
"Please list any motoring convictions in the last 5 years. If unsure,
conviction details can be found on your driving licence."

My name counts as conviction details?

--

Ian D

#28

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:25:53 GMT, Chris Whelan
<cawhelan (AT) prejudicentlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:12:37 +0000, Adrian wrote:

Willy Eckerslyke <oss108no_spam (AT) bangor (DOT) ac.uk> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

I do not know what I am taking about like, but do not insurance
companies ask if you have any driving convictions, not if you have
points? So I would expect to have to tell them about a speeding
ticket that resulted in a speed awareness course as much as if it
resulted in 3 points.

Don't take my word for it, but it's my understanding that no
prosecution means no conviction.

Strictly speaking, an FPN isn't a "prosecution" - it's an alternative to
a prosecution, as is a course.

The simples wording on a certain car insurance comparison website
says... "Please list any motoring convictions in the last 5 years. If
unsure, conviction details can be found on your driving licence."

Most policies have a clause about material disclosure, requiring that
they are informed about anything that might affect their risk.

Would not the act of having been caught speeding, regardless of whether
the outcome was a conviction or a course, count as affecting the risk?

By the same token, wouldn't being too stupid to understand the
question count as affecting the risk?
Have you declared that to your insurance company?

Alternatively, let's just go with "No".

--

Ian D

#29

"Chris Whelan" <cawhelan (AT) prejudicentlworld (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Most policies have a clause about material disclosure, requiring that
they are informed about anything that might affect their risk.

Would not the act of having been caught speeding, regardless of whether
the outcome was a conviction or a course, count as affecting the risk?

Taking that to its logical conclusion the very act of speeding requires
material disclosure, so most of need to 'fess up every time we go out on the
road.

DAS

#30

sweller wrote:

Quote:

Paul wrote:

If you mean they need proof of receipt, then you are indeed wrong,
as you say.
You miss the point. There is plenty of case law that posting it on
day 14 is not good enough.
Then you'll be able to post a link to one?

I doubt it - an acquaintance of mine thought he had the same get out.
Unfortunately the court disagreed and he was stuffed. As you say,
putting it in the postal system counts as served.

I was taken to court by the DVLA a few years ago for something and the
DVLA representative tried the "putting it in the post means its served"
routine. Magistrate threw it out there and then. I may have been lucky
but it was possibly because the DVLA rep said something along the lines
that anything they post is as good as recorded delivery, which is
obviously bollocks.

--
Pete M - OMF#9

'62 Rover P4 100
'61 Rover P5 3 litre
'78 Escort 1300 Sport
'99 Audi A6 V6 Quattro Avant

"It's an Alfa, it will go wrong, it will piss you off, why should your
Alfa experience be different from everyone else's.
Now get back out there and swear at it before something else breaks."