SJPN notice served after submitting correct paperwork a few months ago

[celia22]

Hi. My husband received a SJPN yesterday in relation to a speeding fine in January. At the time of the offence he completed all the necessary documentation and returned it. Now this has come out of the blue. They gave returned copies of his forms and also there is a witness statement from a metropolitan police officer (camera processing caseworker) stating that my husband paid the fine but did not provide their licence details so a refund was requested. He did provide his licence details as a copy of this was returned with the documents . There is a second witness statement dated 26/03 from an ITS SUPPORT MANAGER for traffic prosecutions that says (in a nutshell) that there was a ‘major technical error’ on his part and that ‘the document template that had been used to generate these notices were incorrect’. There is a statement that says‘ after consulting with NECSWSand explaining my mistake, I was told that there was no means to revert what has occurred to these uploaded offences. All affected letters had to be downloaded and then individually regenerated. This meant that a total of 1911 offences in Pentip need the following process.’ It then goes into say that they need to fill out new templates etc. so this is all contradictory. The 1st witness statement says hubby did not provide his licence details (he did) and the 2nd one says it sounds like it’s a administration error by the police and therefore he has to do the SJPN. He doesn’t dispute the speeding offence but would appreciate any advice as to why this has resulted in a SJPN notice and whether he has any ground to appeal due to the police administration error. Thank you

[HandyAndy]

Did it ever get as far as your husband being made a "Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty"?

[celia22]

I’m not sure tbh. He filled in the paperwork paid the £100 and sent his drivers licence back and heard nothing until we received this letter

[HandyAndy]

Then it must have done.

To be honest, the statement from the IT Support bod means very little to me (and probably even less to you).

He needs to concentrate on the position he is in (that is, he faces prosecution for speeding). There are two ways to deal with this. One could see him acquitted entirely, the other should see the court impose a penalty equivalent to the fixed penalty.

Does he have any proof that he provided his DL details when he accepted the fixed penalty?

[celia22]

Well as they sent the paperwork back and he has a record on his bank account of the transaction then I would say yes. But would he have to go to court and atgue the position?

[HandyAndy]

Well as they sent the paperwork back and he has a record on his bank account of the transaction then I would say yes.

They are not claiming hat the payment didn't reach them. They are saying that they did not received his DL details. They have to be submitted twice: once when he responds to the "request for driver's details" and again when accepting the fixed penalty offer.

The two courses of action are these:

He can respond o the SJPN by pleading guilty and ask the court to sentence him at the fixed penalty equivalent. Magistrates have guidance which suggests they should consider his in his circumstances:

"Where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances."

The second option is to plead Not Guilty on the basis that he complied with the requirements of the fixed penalty offer (to pay £100 and provide proof of identity). Section 76 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act says this:

76 Effect of offer and payment of penalty.

(2)Where the alleged offender has fulfilled the conditions specified in the conditional offer...no proceedings shall be brought against him for the offence to which the offer relates unless subsection (3) below applies.

(Subsection 3 applies where a driver is liable to disqualification under the "totting up" procedure and so is not relevant).

To take advantage of s76 the court must be satisfied that he did comply with the offer's requirements so he needs to be able to demonstrate that he paid the £100 (which should be easy) and submitted his licence details.

I must say, considering this IT error (or whatever it was) has meant that almost 2,000 drivers have been subject to court proceedings when they need not have been, I am surprised the police did not simply declare an amnesty for them out of embarrassment. However, as I said, your husband is where he is and not where he would like to be, so he must deal with the situation as it stands.

If he goes down the Not Guilty road, before he enters his plea he might enquire with the police precisely what this error was and how it meant court proceedings were issued when they need not have been. But if he is certain he submitted his licence and can show the court he has done so, I wouldn't bother.

[celia22]

Thanks for you help on this