Speeding ticket

[R0b]

Re: Speeding ticket

@mystery1,

Question, if it was likely offered as indicated by the police officer saying he didn't qualify, and taking into account the ACPO guidelines on speed enforcement, which 67mph would fall within the tolerated amount, then you wouldn't say that there is a chance this could be overturned?

The reason I say is that we had an employee in a very similar situation although after a letter to the CPS, outlining the fact it was the fleet company at fault for failing to notify in time, they dropped the case.

Although speed awareness discretion of the officer, it sounds like had he replied within 21 days as required, he would have qualified for the course - which then goes back to my point about negligence against the company/leasing company.
[MENTION=80947]Ciprian.Bogatian[/MENTION] , which police force was this by the way?

[mystery1]

Re: Speeding ticket

Question, if it was likely offered as indicated by the police officer saying he didn't qualify, and taking into account the ACPO guidelines on speed enforcement, which 67mph would fall within the tolerated amount, then you wouldn't say that there is a chance this could be overturned?

No. Acpo guidelines are tosh. People keep using them to try and get off only to lose. Acpo guidelines are different to the law. At 61 mph the law is broken and unless you are specifically told you won't be prosecuted then you can be. Generally you wouldn't be but you certainly can be.

The reason I say is that we had an employee in a very similar situation although after a letter to the CPS, outlining the fact it was the fleet company at fault for failing to notify in time, they dropped the case.

Each case turns on it's own facts. It may be there were other reasons or the recipient of the letter was in a good mood or whatever, however none of that would help in an appeal. The hammer has fallen and the verdict announced.

Although speed awareness discretion of the officer, it sounds like had he replied within 21 days as required, he would have qualified for the course - which then goes back to my point about negligence against the company/leasing company.

The 21 days is nonsense. They will allow courses to be taken if they can be taken without there being a danger of timing out. This is usually, as i recall, within 3 months. Most forces south of the border will offer courses but not always and there is no statutory right to get one.

M1

[Ciprian.Bogatian]

Re: Speeding ticket

Kent Police.,
I still think that the guys from Fleet didn't did their job...
Should I get a solicitor and make an appeal?!

[R0b]

Re: Speeding ticket

[MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION] is the expert here not me, so if he is saying no chance of an appeal of conviction then I would say no. However, I would still stand on the argument that Fleet have been negligent in failing to notify you within a reasonable time. I suppose it would also depend on the company car policy and what the agreement between the company and Fleet says but with most things, they should have notified your company within a reasonable time and your company then notifies you.

[des8]

Re: Speeding ticket

You will not have your conviction and penalty overturned.

The best you could hope for is that your company would reimburse the difference between the cost of the speed awareness course and your fine, not forgetting to take into account you would have used paid holiday to take the course.
If you want to go to court what your cause of action would be, I wouldn't hazard a guess.
Chances of success...... nil?

And you still want employment?

Sorry, but IMO you need to forget this, put it behind you and get on with life.

[mystery1]

Re: Speeding ticket

The fleet company have no need to do anything other than fill in and post the form correctly. They get a nip/s172 in their name and when they fill it in and send it back to the police in accordance with their legal obligations it's up to the police to chase the nominated keeper.

M1

[R0b]

Re: Speeding ticket

The fleet company have no need to do anything other than fill in and post the form correctly. They get a nip/s172 in their name and when they fill it in and send it back to the police in accordance with their legal obligations it's up to the police to chase the nominated keeper.
M1

Looking at the wider picture, there may be an obligation on them to notify the company under the contract, possibly in a reasonable time if it is silent on the matter and the company to notify the driver of the vehicle. So although there they have fulfilled their obligations with the police, their contractual obligations may not necessarily be fulfilled. Maybe getting a bit more technical than is needed but its still a possibility.