£1450 Speeding Fine - wow
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by leaforge View PostHello
Thanks for all the useful comments.
just to add...
the court was informed of the drivers name and also informed that he was not in the UK - he is now resident in Italy, Nissan Navara was perfectly road worthy, used during day for collecting building materials etc. The company car is owned by a limited company.
I have until 8th Oct to pay it.
Roy
Telling the court was entirely meaningless. It wasn't the court that sent the s172 notice. It was the court that found you guilty of not providing an adequate response within the statutory timeframe of 28 days from service of the s172 request.
M1
-
Originally posted by enquirer View PostAgreed, it's got Colonel Blimp's fingerprints all over it!
It might pay you to speak to the court's legal team as they would have handled the case papers prior to the date of the hearing and scrutinised them.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mystery1 View PostYou have sent a letter to the court. The court has taken this as a not guilty plea. It would appear you didn't go to court. The court had no income/expenditure form on which to base the fine when they found you guilty.
http://www.motoringoffences.com/uplo...lines_2008.pdf
The guidlines for failure to furnish are for a
FINE BAND C
Starting Point: 150% of relevant weekly income
Range: 125% - 175% of relevant weekly income
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...road-user.html
The magistrates obviously didn't believe you gave all the information that was in your power to give.
M1
- 1 thank
Leave a comment:
-
Guest replied
Leave a comment:
-
http://www.motoringoffences.com/uplo...lines_2008.pdf
The guidlines for failure to furnish are for a
FINE BAND C
Starting Point: 150% of relevant weekly income
Range: 125% - 175% of relevant weekly income
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...road-user.html
The magistrates obviously didn't believe you gave all the information that was in your power to give.
M1
- 1 thank
Leave a comment:
-
R -v- South Western Magsitrates (on the application of Purnell), a judicial review, confirms that where a defendant's means have not been examined, a fine cannot be imposed or enforced.
It also has the hallmarks of JPs and not a District Judge dealing with the case. The fine, costs and victim surcharge are excessive.
I agree with what Enquirer says in their post.
Leave a comment:
View our Terms and Conditions
LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.
If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.
If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
Leave a comment: