Advice on Speeding Case Reopened After Statutory Declaration

[StuDoc]

Hi all,

The driver is looking for advice ahead of a court hearing now set for 17 July 2025 at Bradford Magistrates' Court, following a successful statutory declaration to reopen a case that was previously heard in absence. The driver would really appreciate any insight into the next steps and possible outcomes.

Background

• The alleged offence occurred on 26 July 2024 at 19:13 on Wetherby Road, Walton (bi-directional, junction with School Lane).
• A vehicle was recorded by an automatic camera travelling at 42mph in a 30mph zone.
• This was the first alleged speeding offence involving the driver in over 20 years of clean driving.
• The vehicle was a company van, and the driver was operating on a self-employed basis at the time.
• The incident happened just after the driver had completed their final delivery of the day, exiting a built-up area and transitioning onto a stretch of road that leads into open countryside and eventually a national speed limit zone.
• The driver believed, under pressure and fatigue, that they had entered a faster limit and did not notice any prominent signage.
• A review of Google Street View (May 2024) suggests the 30mph and camera signage may be partially obscured by overgrown bushes.
• A screenshot and full folder of documents have been included here for context:

Dropbox folder: View evidence

Street View link: Google Maps – Wetherby Road


Circumstances on the Day

• The driver was working for a delivery company with a reputation for poor management and little regard for driver welfare.
• Though the driver had opted out of driving duties, they were unexpectedly asked to complete a two-person delivery route solo due to staff absence.
• This included multiple heavy garden furniture deliveries across Yorkshire, with the driver relying on customers to help unload.
• The final delivery was delayed due to the recipient not being home. The driver waited for a response from the dispatcher before leaving the item securely, further delaying their return.
• The driver had been on the road since before 6am, working what ended up being a 15, almost 16 hour shift, and was under pressure to get home to see their children before bedtime.

Legal Timeline

• The driver accepted liability online shortly after receiving the first letter from the authorities — this was the only correspondence received at the time.
• According to the court, a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty (£100 + 3 points) was issued on 16 September 2024, but the driver never received this.
• Communication with the driver’s ex-partner (who remained at the original address) completely broke down from mid-September 2024 to 3 April 2025, and no post was forwarded.
• In April 2025, communication resumed; and the driver was handed around seven letters in one day, all further steps notice and enforcement warnings.
• The driver had been convicted in absence on 12 March 2025 at Bradford Magistrates’ Court, receiving:
o Fine: £706
o 5 penalty points
o A collection order with threat of enforcement


• Despite dealing with the bereavement of their mother around the same time, the driver made efforts to correct the situation:

o Initially completed the wrong form following incorrect GOV.UK guidance
o Attended Wellingborough Magistrates’ Court in person
o Was advised to submit a Statutory Declaration via email instead
• After multiple email exchanges, the Statutory Declaration was accepted on 30 June 2025
• A new court date for sentencing has been set for 17 July 2025 at Bradford Magistrates’ Court

Key Questions

1. What are the chances that the court may re-offer the original Fixed Penalty (3 points and £100 fine)?

2. Could the driver be considered for a Speed Awareness Course, given the offence was 42mph in a 30, and this is a clean record over 20+ years? The driver has heard other stories of more extreme speeds on a 70 speed limit road, getting off with just a speed awareness course.

3. Might the court show leniency based on:

o The breakdown in communication
o Family situation and bereavement
o Employment pressures and fatigue
o Misjudgement of the road layout

4. Would it be worth instructing a solicitor, or is it best for the driver to present their own case?

5. Is there a risk the court could impose a harsher penalty than either the original offer or the in-absence sentence?

6. Is there any chance of resolving this without attending, or is in-person appearance the only route now?

Any advice on what the best course of action is at this stage would be greatly appreciated. The driver has every intention to attend in person and take responsibility, but would like the wider context to be fairly considered.

Thanks in advance,

[StuDoc]

Additional context regarding the driver’s departure from the company:

The driver left the company within a few days of the incident; before even being made aware of the speeding offence. The decision to leave was based on several factors:

•The day before the driver was next due out, the company informed them they would once again be required to drive, despite having previously opted out of driving roles.

•That same week, the driver had only been offered around a day and a half’s worth of work, despite offering availability for 6 days and previously working most of the week regularly. This made it financially unsustainable.

•In response, the driver secured a full-time job elsewhere and formally ended the working relationship with the firm.

[islandgirl]

Here are the guidelines https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...-revised-2017/
42 in a 30 is a band B fine (100% of weekly income approx) and 4 to 6 points
You were lucky to orignally be offered the £100 and 3 points and it is a shame that you did not receive this offer. Speed awareness courses are usually only offered where the speed is only slightly over the limit so unlikely in this case
As someone who has sentenced these type of cases, the issues we would consider for mitigation are listed on the guidelines - have a read.
As magistrates we have sometimes offered the same penalty as the one originally sent but not received by the driver (ie the same fine and points) but it is not guaranteed as it is outside the guidelines.
I am sure Handyandy our resident expert will be along with further advice.

[StuDoc]

The driver would like to thank islandgirl for taking the time to share their insight; it is greatly appreciated.

The sentencing guidelines have now been reviewed in full, and it certainly helps to understand how the Band B range applies in this case. While the original offer of £100 and 3 points appears to have been unusually lenient, the driver had unfortunately never received that letter and acted as soon as further notices were finally passed on.

It is helpful to know that there have been instances where magistrates have applied the original offer even after a statutory declaration, though of course, the driver understands this cannot be expected.

The driver will await any further input from HandyAndy or others with experience in similar cases and again extends thanks for the helpful advice.

[StuDoc]

Hi islandgirl; thanks again for confirming that the original offer of £100 and 3 points was particularly lenient in this case.

As the driver did not receive that original letter and has now had a statutory declaration accepted (with a hearing now listed), would it be advisable at this stage to try contacting the relevant court or prosecuting authority in advance of the hearing to see if they would consider re-offering that original Fixed Penalty? Or is that unlikely to be entertained now that the matter has been reopened and listed for sentencing?

Having read through the guidelines you kindly linked to, there do appear to be some areas that may support mitigation; although, of course, nothing is guaranteed. The driver hopes that the wider circumstances, along with previous good character, may be taken into account at the hearing.

If helpful, the driver could also potentially obtain a statement from the individual who was responsible for assigning driving duties at the time. This could confirm that the driver was originally working as a porter and had to step into a driving role at short notice, contrary to the previous agreement, due to last-minute staff shortages.

Thanks again for all the guidance so far.

[islandgirl]

I would stick to issues relating to the mitigation -

• No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions
• Positive character and/or exemplary conduct (regardless of previous convictions)
• Genuine emergency established

Perhaps a statement of how you were considered an excellent member of staff etc, any other statements relating to positive character and conduct. As the guidelines say

Evidence that an offender has demonstrated a positive side to their character may reduce the sentence.

Hopefully more opinions will be given soon!

[Manxman]

[QUOTE=islandgirl;n1708522]

... As magistrates we have sometimes offered the same penalty as the one originally sent but not received by the driver (ie the same fine and points) but it is not guaranteed as it is outside the guidelines... /QUOTE]

islandgirl - Isn't that actually specifically provided for in the sentencing guidelines you quote?

"... 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"

General guideline: overarching principles – Sentencing

Wouldn't that apply here and be something that the OP could request?

[islandgirl]

yeeesssss but...a) there was no admin failure by the Police - the OP did not get the letters due to his circumstances and b) the offer was below the guidelines

When sentencing in cases in which a penalty notice was available:

• the fact that the offender did not take advantage of the penalty (whether that was by requesting a hearing or failing to pay within the specified timeframe) does not increase the seriousness of the offence and must not be regarded as an aggravating factor. The appropriate sentence must be determined in accordance with the sentencing principles set out in this guideline (including the amount of any fine, which must take an offender’s financial circumstances into account), disregarding the availability of the penalty. In some cases this may result in a fine that is lower than the fixed penalty.
• 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.

[Manxman]

islandgirl - But the guidelines don't say anything about either there having to have been an admin failure by the police or that the COFP has to be in line with the guidelines

They simply say "where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself ..." [my bold for emphasis] that " ... 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".

Administrative difficulties outside the control of the defendant are simply given as a single example of a reason unconnected with the offence itself, and are not stated to be an exclusive reason. And no mention is made of the police - not that that is relevant.

AIUI (and I may be mistaken) the reason the OP did not receive the COFP in this case is because his estranged partner chose not to forward his mail on to him.

Seems to me that that perfectly fits the requirement that the OP could not take up the COFP for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, and that he should not be unduly penalised - ie he should be fined an equivalent to the fixed penalty, and should not be made to pay costs.

I'm not a magistrate but the guidelines seem perfectly straightforward to me, and if I were the OP that's what I'd respectfully ask the court to follow.

[islandgirl]

It is entirely at the discretion of the court. Guidelines are just that, guidelines. Remember - "The appropriate sentence must be determined in accordance with the sentencing principles set out in this guideline". The penalty offered was not. If the mags believe that the OP did not get the correspondence and acted immediately the issue was discovered (and any evidence of this the OP has would be a good idea), there is a good chance that the original (very low level) penalty will be given. It does not have to be. The OP can of course refer to these guidelines and respectfully ask the mags to consider them but the clue is in the name! Each case is totally different.

[PallasAthena]

Just to be devil's advocate for a moment, in deciding whether the delay was outside OP's control magistrates might ask why OP had not arranged Royal Mail Redirection as soon as he realised his ex was not forwarding his mail.

Or why he hadn't notified the police of his change of address.

OP should at least be prepared to answer these questions in case they come up

[islandgirl]

The driver will almost certainly be asked if they had updated their address with the DVLA when they moved out.

[StuDoc]

Quick update from the driver:

The driver would like to extend sincere thanks to everyone who has contributed so far; your input has been incredibly helpful and very much appreciated.

There is a follow-up post drafted regarding the hours worked in the lead-up to the alleged offence and the circumstances around the driving shift that day. However, the driver will first prioritise responding to the recent questions and points raised over the past 24–36 hours.

Those replies will follow within the next 2–3 hours.

Thanks again for your time and support; it genuinely means a lot.

[StuDoc]

Apologies for the delay in replying. Update from the driver:

The driver would like to apologise for the delay in posting the promised update. There were some technical issues yesterday, and the driver also spent time with his eldest son to take him shopping for his birthday clothing, which was much-needed bonding time.

Now that connectivity is sorted, the driver would like to thank everyone again for the continued help and support. It has not been taken for granted.

The driver will respond properly to the specific points raised in recent replies shortly. In the meantime, he wanted to share some personal context around the address and communication issues mentioned previously, along with an important update on the steps taken once the court action came to light.



Background on the driver's housing situation and mental state:

The driver never intended to leave the original address. He had purchased the home with a 100% deposit from his own funds and initially took out the mortgage in his own name just over 10 years ago (May 2015) before later adding his (now) ex-partner for family stability. in 2017

Following the breakdown of the relationship last year, despite the driver's efforts to reconcile, including counselling attempts and participation in a coaching programme on his own (The Powerful Man), he was effectively forced out of the home. He ended up living in difficult and isolating conditions, sharing accommodation with acquaintances. One housemate regularly used cannabis and dominated the living space, while the other worked nights and used to sleep all day, making it a very lonely, isolated and uninviting living environment. The driver used the property only to sleep, and spent the rest of his time working, visiting people, going for long walks, staying in cafes, McDonald's etc, trying to find something more stable, and basically just do anything he could to avoid going back and spending ant spare time within the living situation that he hated so much.

He did not update his DVLA address or redirect post during this time, as he did not believe, nor intend that the move was permanent. Most of his correspondence (including bills) was paperless, and in hindsight, redirection did not feel practical or necessary, particularly when he didn't know where he would be from one week to the next. He had no family to rely on to move in with or use as a postal address. His mother was already sharing a two-bed flat with his Sister, her partner, and her son. His Father had passed away years ago, and close friends were not in a position to accommodate him, due to having their own families.

The driver explored various options, including advertised luxury HMOs, but they turned out to be damp, overpriced, and restrictive; certainly not the 'luxurious living' advertised. He briefly tried moving out again in November, but the situation worsened, leaving him more depressed and isolated than ever, so he returned to his previous accommodation within two weeks, due to a lack of alternative options.

Throughout this time, he continued paying child support in full and on time. Evidence of all of this; rental searches, letting agent contacts, proof of ownership and eventual buyout, and the ad he posted on Nextdoor looking for a new place, can be provided.

---

Steps taken once aware of the court action:

When the driver eventually became aware that the matter had escalated to court, he acted quickly, despite the timing being particularly distressing.

This all coincided with his recent house move and a resumed communication with his ex-partner. It was during this time that he received a flood of letters; seven or eight enforcement letters on the same day, warning that unless payment was made, enforcement action would follow within the next 10 days.

The timing made things more urgent as the Easter bank holiday weekend was fast approaching, and the courts were about to close. Tragically, this also occurred on Thursday, 17th April 2025, the day the driver's Mother passed away.

Despite this, and still in shock, after spending time with his Sister and Mother until the doctor finally arrived almost three and a half hours later, the driver travelled to Wellingborough Magistrates Court in person that same day to try and resolve the matter before the holiday weekend.

At the time, he believed he needed to submit a written statement 'of ignorance of proceedings' (what he now understands was a statutory declaration), but was told in person that submissions were no longer accepted by hand and had to be sent via email.

The email address given to him also turned out to be incorrect, adding to the confusion and delays.

Nevertheless, the driver persisted, documenting his visit with a photo outside the court and a timestamped slip from reception to prove his effort. He followed up with further emails, re-sent documents when requested, and eventually had his statutory declaration accepted. The court has now been updated with his current address.

---

Next post to follow shortly:

The driver will soon share a separate update regarding his hours worked the week of the alleged offence, including contact with the individual who arranged the delivery run. This will clarify the driver's role that day and provide further context for mitigation.

Thanks again to everyone for the support and insights so far; they are genuinely appreciated.

[StuDoc]

Further update from the driver on working hours and role clarification:

The driver has now reviewed their working hours from the week of the alleged offence. These have been informally confirmed by the company they were working with at the time. Below is a breakdown of the scheduled run times versus the actual hours worked, with roles and context provided:

---

Monday 22nd July 2024

Role: Porter (driver's mate)
Scheduled: 12.5 hours
Actual: 05:30 start - 20:40 return - 15 hours and 10 minutes


Tuesday 23rd July 2024

Day off (pre-booked for a family commitment)


Wednesday 24th July 2024

Role: Porter
Scheduled: 9h 45m
Actual: 06:00 -18:00 - 12 hours


Thursday 25th July 2024

Role: Porter
Scheduled: 11 hours
Actual: 06:00 - 19:10 - 13 hours and 10 minutes


Friday 26th July 2024 (day of alleged offence)

Scheduled: 10.5 hours (two-person delivery run)
Actual: 05:30 start, Return home approx. 22:00 - 16 hours and 30 minutes (These sort of hours were at times commonplace, and beyond expected time runs, due to unforeseen traffic or unanticipated hold-ups at points of delivery)

Note: Driver attended alone due to staff absence and took required rest breaks, hence being behind on the (expected) run time.

---

The earlier shifts were carried out as a porter, not as a driver, so initially, there was no risk of exceeding driving hour restrictions. The Friday shift was a two-man run, and the driver was not originally scheduled to drive. Due to staff absence, they were asked to take on the driving role at the last minute, despite normally working as a porter/driver’s mate. This was done under pressure to keep the run going.

The driver is aware that references to tiredness or fatigue must be handled very carefully, as they could raise concerns about fitness to drive. However, it’s also important to explain the wider context: the driver had worked long hours all week, was not scheduled to drive that day, and agreed to help only due to pressure from the company and in the interest of keeping the delivery run going.

The driver is seeking advice on whether this context (particularly regarding pressure and potential fatigue) is likely to support or harm their case. If it is not appropriate to raise as mitigation, the driver will of course, focus elsewhere.

No details have yet been added for Saturday 27th or Sunday 28th July, though the driver believes they worked at least one of those days. These details can be provided if relevant.
Thanks again for all the continued support and insights; any further guidance is very much appreciated.