NIP - speeding with photo evidence

Evening all,

16,08,18 "allegedly" doing 37 in a 30, there are small camera signs on lamp posts maybe 1/2 mile apart on the road. Speed camera van tucked nicely away in a corner obscured until about 200-300m away
letter dated 20th giving me 28 days.
On the 25th i sent them this (not with the FORM they send Section 172 Statement):
With reference to the Notice of intended prosecution dated 20,8,18 and received 22,8,18

Reference number: 0213xxxx55990xx
Eros number: NRxxxA/1xxx007

Dear Sir or Madam,

There are often a number of vehicles parked at the address and there is an open use policy in place whereby everyone who sleeps at the address is entitled to drive any car belonging to another person who sleeps at the home; on the bases of pay for all damages.

I have, with reasonable diligence made enquiries as to was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence However I do not know who the driver was because I was not in the car on that day and and I cannot be compelled to, nor do I wish to falsely or incompletely complete the nomination statement.

Also, as there are severe penalties for providing false and misleading information and that I do not wish to expose myself to legal action by them or another driver so I am relying on you providing me with a picture taken at the time by the speed or red light camera to further assist in the naming of the driver at the time of the alleged offence.

When you get the photos have a look and see if the driver can be identified if not tell them you cannot identify the driver can they send you a clearer image they normally give up at this stage if they threaten you then point out that they are trying to make you bear false witness and make a complaint. OOOPS i think this went too!

Your faithfully
xxxxx

They have sent photo evidence, it could be me in an ID parade, can't see my eyes in them.

Wondering what i can do next? Any help greatly appreciated.

i have heard of asking for their calibration, trajectory etc...
Also heard a tale where a reply was sent stating that "you pay the DVLA for your information, as i do not have this in place i will endeavour to find the person who was in the vehicle at the time. Please pay £10 for my time"
Words to that effect, apparently they do not have a facility to issue payments out so it was dropped...any comments welcomed.

many cheers
Lesson learned- be careful when copy and pasting!

Hi itheman

I got court on M6 by average speed camera few weeks back.
I am currently working on it. Will let you soon know about the outcomes

I have, with reasonable diligence made enquiries as to was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence However I do not know who the driver was because I was not in the car on that day

" I was not in the car at the time " may be more appropriate. "Because of there are severe penalties for providing false or missleading information I dare not guess or speculate on may have been the drive because I risk very larrge fines.

Officer I clocked at 'x' over the limit.

:you; I was not speeding, your equipment must be faulty. - you have just injected reasoable doubt and thats all you have to do.

You: Can I have a look at your camera?" - Cop- yea here it is. You: Where on this device does it show my car speeding? Unless they can show you your car speeding they may not even be able to prove you were there.

In court - you: officer; can you prove to this court with objective evidence that this image could not have been digialty altered?

Get hold of the operators manual, go through it with a fine tooth comb and look for all the cuases of possible speed camea error.

Attack the claibration of the camera. There must be a National Measurememnts Act in the UK. When was it last claibrated.

Ask them for the originating specificiations for the camera - I bet they cant show you any .... because there are NO origininating specificaitons for speed camera world wide. Therefore they is nothing AGAINST which to claibrate them.

Officer; can you prove to this court that this camera has not been corrupted by an eletronic virius which has caused a faulty reading.

Morning All

first of all:

You have to state: it is not a appeal and: Do not ignore this notice.

Ref no: - its is not yours, so write Yours ref no.

State it clear that:
You do not give consent for any proceedings.

if notice they sent is not signed/missing name of the person that sent it:
Dear Sirs,

We do not know to whom to name as the recipient of this communication, as the sender failed in his/her duty of care and did not sign the document sent to xxxxxxxx.

The action of not signing the document legally means that no living person has taken legal responsibility for the content of the document on behalf of XXXXXX and the document couldn’t be legally responded to. That very act of not signing the document renders the document ‘void’ and therefore non-legal and unusable in law under current legislation.

This document will now be kept on file as evidence, as it presents the criminal activities of the representatives of XXXXXXX whether they are aware of this transgression or not.
Ignorance of the law is no defence and all the representatives of XXXXXXXXXX are now culpable under the current legislation. This is fact that must be understood.

Ask for copy of signed contract between you and them requiring you for supplying any kind of information or any other activity and unquestionable proof of loss, harm, damage that driver of vehicle XXXXXX made.

Ask them kindly to withdraw and don't give them perdition to share your private info with any 3rd party without written consent/permission.    

At the same time list a fee schedule for each violation.

Is also handy to have yours T&C

I have sent my one yesterday.
To be honest, not expecting reply from them.

Hope that will help

no HARM no Crime

Speeding is not a crime till you wan't hurt someone, damage something etc.

Thank you all
i am considering sending this, it is digitally signed:

9th September 2018

With reference to the Notice of intended prosecution dated 20,8,18 and received 22,8,18

Reference number: 02xxxxxxxxx9xx0
Eros number: NxxxxxA/1xxxx

Dear Gareth Morgan,

Thank you for supplying the images, these have been looked at but still unable to state beyond reasonable doubt who was in the car at that time.

I kindly ask that you withdraw this Notice of intended prosecution.

I do not give consent to any of my private information to any 3rd party without my written consent.

Your sincerely
xxxxx

i know it's all perhaps a bit trial and error, likely will always be as they try to restrict our rights, but would you advise if i have missed any key points off?

Many thanks

If you were not in the vehicle at the alleged time of alleged offence, then how could you possibly declare lawfully who the driver is or who was in control of the vehicle etc. You could possibly be committing perjury by declaring someone else was the driver.

How can you lawfully pay a fine for something if it is only alleged and not proven?

By forcing you to sign a legal document ie a declaration is an offence in itself.. Would you question that you could possibly sign because you have been threatened?... If you don't pay the fine or tell us who is responsible, then we will fine you ££'s. That is forcing you under duress to possibly commit perjury.

Letter - Although the vehicle registration number xxxxxxxx is registered at the address stated on the infringement notice, I have not been provided with any material facts or evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I am the driver, presumed driver or the person in charge of the named vehicle or to be held responsible for such an alleged offence at the time of the alleged offence.  

There are quite a number of vehicles registered to this address, let alone others that are not.  Nonetheless, there are several people that reside here and ones that do not, but they all have full access to keys to use any of the vehicles for travel so long as they replace the fuel they consume and return it in the same condition.

There are significant penalties for providing false or misleading information. Therefore I cannot afford to take risks and make assumptions, guess or speculate as to who was or might have been driving the car at time the act took place.

Having applied reasonable due diligence to this matter, I am unable to state who was driving the car because I was not in the car at the time alledged offence occured.

I think this is known as the Hamilton defence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7008914.stm

but be careful of using it as you could end up with 6 points.

Speeding drivers face more points
Dashboard speedometer - generic
Most speeding vehicles are caught by speed cameras
Motorists who fail to declare who was behind the wheel when a speeding offence was committed are to face stiffer penalties from Monday.
Those convicted of failing to provide information on the identity of a driver will get six penalty points on their licence - doubling the current rate.

The aim is to punish those who falsely claim they do not know who was driving.

Ministers say those with good reason for not naming a driver, such as if a vehicle is stolen, will have a defence.
'Hamilton defence'

According to the Department of Transport, relatively few speeding motorists are pulled over on the spot.

Most vehicles committing offences are caught by speed cameras, which cannot always identify the driver.

The government says it is concerned that some motorists are exploiting the so-called "Hamilton defence", named after former Conservative MP Neil Hamilton and his wife, Christine, who avoided a speeding fine four years ago.

They said they had been taking it in turns behind the wheel so could not say which of them had been flashed by the camera.


Our concern is that it will cause hardship to that small number of motorists who genuinely do not know
Sheila Rainger
RAC Foundation
Vehicle owners are obliged under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to tell police who was driving at the time of an alleged motoring offence.

Critics said those who genuinely did not know who was driving their car when an offence was committed could suffer.

Sheila Rainger, of the RAC Foundation, said: "It's a provision that has been abused and that's really the reason behind upping the stakes in this way.

"Our concern is that it will cause hardship to that small number of motorists who genuinely do not know.

"You might say 'how on earth can you not know who is driving your car' but for a family car shared between four or five members of the one family it's quite possible you genuinely may not know."

Lawyer Nick Freeman - known as Mr Loophole because of his success at getting clients acquitted of motoring offences - said he also thought the new legislation unfair.

He said: "I'm concerned that people are going to be placed under pressure to try and name - and of course there are genuine cases; many, many genuine cases where people simply don't know who was driving, and my theory is that they're going to put down a name simply to avoid getting six penalty points."

Maxim of Law ; Nemo puntitur pro alienco delicto : 'No one is to be punished for the crime or wrong of another'

handle wrote:I think this is known as the Hamilton defence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7008914.stm

but be careful of using it as you could end up with 6 points.

Speeding drivers face more points
Dashboard speedometer - generic
Most speeding vehicles are caught by speed cameras
Motorists who fail to declare who was behind the wheel when a speeding offence was committed are to face stiffer penalties from Monday.
Those convicted of failing to provide information on the identity of a driver will get six penalty points on their licence - doubling the current rate.

The aim is to punish those who falsely claim they do not know who was driving.

Ministers say those with good reason for not naming a driver, such as if a vehicle is stolen, will have a defence.
'Hamilton defence'

According to the Department of Transport, relatively few speeding motorists are pulled over on the spot.

Most vehicles committing offences are caught by speed cameras, which cannot always identify the driver.

The government says it is concerned that some motorists are exploiting the so-called "Hamilton defence", named after former Conservative MP Neil Hamilton and his wife, Christine, who avoided a speeding fine four years ago.

They said they had been taking it in turns behind the wheel so could not say which of them had been flashed by the camera.


Our concern is that it will cause hardship to that small number of motorists who genuinely do not know  
Sheila Rainger
RAC Foundation
Vehicle owners are obliged under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to tell police who was driving at the time of an alleged motoring offence.

Critics said those who genuinely did not know who was driving their car when an offence was committed could suffer.

Sheila Rainger, of the RAC Foundation, said: "It's a provision that has been abused and that's really the reason behind upping the stakes in this way.

"Our concern is that it will cause hardship to that small number of motorists who genuinely do not know.

"You might say 'how on earth can you not know who is driving your car' but for a family car shared between four or five members of the one family it's quite possible you genuinely may not know."

Lawyer Nick Freeman - known as Mr Loophole because of his success at getting clients acquitted of motoring offences - said he also thought the new legislation unfair.

He said: "I'm concerned that people are going to be placed under pressure to try and name - and of course there are genuine cases; many, many genuine cases where people simply don't know who was driving, and my theory is that they're going to put down a name simply to avoid getting six penalty points."

The aim is to punish those who falsely claim they do not know who was driving.

Ministers say those with good reason for not naming a driver, such as if a vehicle is stolen, will have a defence.

We all know where this is going, there is no reason to explain it all. Its sliding into tyranny, where accusation equals guilt. Where the burden of proof is reversed and the presumption of guilt will be come the norm.

It will go even further where if you go to court you will have to pay the prosecutions costs and not just your own. Courts don't give the accuser costs because their costs are paid by the state. Remember; they are taking us to court. We are not taking them to court, we have made a claim against but none of this will matter now or in the future.

Its like many other things. If we don't stop watching that rectangular weapon of mass distraction, deceit and deception, everything will just continue to get worse and worse until things have been turned back to the way they were 2-3oo years ago.

handle wrote:I think this is known as the Hamilton defence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7008914.stm

but be careful of using it as you could end up with 6 points.

Speeding drivers face more points
Dashboard speedometer - generic
Most speeding vehicles are caught by speed cameras
Motorists who fail to declare who was behind the wheel when a speeding offence was committed are to face stiffer penalties from Monday.
Those convicted of failing to provide information on the identity of a driver will get six penalty points on their licence - doubling the current rate.

The aim is to punish those who falsely claim they do not know who was driving.

Ministers say those with good reason for not naming a driver, such as if a vehicle is stolen, will have a defence.
'Hamilton defence'

According to the Department of Transport, relatively few speeding motorists are pulled over on the spot.

Most vehicles committing offences are caught by speed cameras, which cannot always identify the driver.

The government says it is concerned that some motorists are exploiting the so-called "Hamilton defence", named after former Conservative MP Neil Hamilton and his wife, Christine, who avoided a speeding fine four years ago.

They said they had been taking it in turns behind the wheel so could not say which of them had been flashed by the camera.


Our concern is that it will cause hardship to that small number of motorists who genuinely do not know  
Sheila Rainger
RAC Foundation
Vehicle owners are obliged under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to tell police who was driving at the time of an alleged motoring offence.

Critics said those who genuinely did not know who was driving their car when an offence was committed could suffer.

Sheila Rainger, of the RAC Foundation, said: "It's a provision that has been abused and that's really the reason behind upping the stakes in this way.

"Our concern is that it will cause hardship to that small number of motorists who genuinely do not know.

"You might say 'how on earth can you not know who is driving your car' but for a family car shared between four or five members of the one family it's quite possible you genuinely may not know."

Lawyer Nick Freeman - known as Mr Loophole because of his success at getting clients acquitted of motoring offences - said he also thought the new legislation unfair.

He said: "I'm concerned that people are going to be placed under pressure to try and name - and of course there are genuine cases; many, many genuine cases where people simply don't know who was driving, and my theory is that they're going to put down a name simply to avoid getting six penalty points."

The aim is to punish those who falsely claim they do not know who was driving.

Ministers say those with good reason for not naming a driver, such as if a vehicle is stolen, will have a defence.

We all know where this is going, there is no reason to explain it all.  Its sliding into tyranny, where accusation equals guilt. The rule of law will cease to exist and the law will be what ever some lackie of the powerful says it is and that will be that.

Before that it will get to a point where if you go to court you will have to pay the prosecutions costs and not just your own. Courts don't give the accuser costs because their costs are paid by the state. Remember; they are taking us to court. We are not taking them to court, we have made a claim against no one but none of this will matter now or in the future.

I am up against this kind of thing myself as I am fighting a parking fine of $60.00. I was told the other day the local mage made the defendant pay the prosecutions costs of $2k+.

Its like many other things. If we don't stop watching that rectangular weapon of mass distraction, deceit and deception, and take an interest in the affairs of state, everything will just continue to get worse and worse until things have been turned back to the way they were 2-3oo years ago.

Someone once said; those who have no interest in politics will always be ruled by those that do.

Someone also said a nation of sheep who will soon have government of wolves.

I’m sure the law states that evidence for speeding must show an exact place. Average speed cameras have no evidence just an assumption.

handle,

law doesn't say anything about the speeding. It is not a crime.
UK is as surveying country policing by consent not dictatorial state policed by harassment and force.

They send you all communication with generated signature, no name of the living person that is taking responsibility.
They will threat you with police, hoping you will finally give them your details and they can get the money of you.

As I have mentioned before, If you know you rights and you will stand for it they can't do anything about it.
They will threat you with all kind of things, you have to challenge and question every letter they will send.
It is so easy when you realise you are not a number, you are human being.

IMO the roads are part of the national estate, they have been paid for by the peoples taxes so therefore they belong to the people. They are common property and one has a right to drive on them.

No company has a right to tax users wether by fines or all by tolls.

Are the road rules, laws in the UK or are they merely rules? In Aus as they are rules and therefore are not law, (in theory) because they are subject to change at short notice so they cant make them laws.

The thing with speed cameras is to attack their reliability and dependability through their weaknesses. There weaknesses lies in their calibration, setup and use. As far as I know they are only every calibrated once per year because they cannot afford to do more regularly.

In car and road side "calibration" are not calibration they are mere site tests to see if the device is working properly and is performing as intended.

The police cannot afford to have them out of services being calibrated any more often than they are. Ask anyone familiar with calibration of measuring equipment and they will tell you there many ways and causes of calibrated equipment falling out of specification.

There are no originating specifications for these devices anywhere in the world so there is nothing to calibrate against, only the manufactures specifications.

Calibration specifications have to be traceable back to the originating specifications.

Officer: can you prove with substantiating evidence this device has calibrated against the originating specifications for these device?

remember; they will tell you they are traceable back to the manufacturers or an International standard ----- so officer what are they traceable back to?

Get hold of the manual of these things and look for all the things that could affect their reliability and accuracy.

If they get you with a hand held camera ask to see the camera. They should show it to you. (otherwise what are they hiding?)

Officer: do you know why I pulled you over?
Driver - Silence
Officer - I clocked you doing xyz.
Driver - I was not speeding, your device must be wrong (you have just created reasonable doubt) thereafter polite denials to every allegation they make and apart from that total silence. After a reasonable silence, Officer am i being detained? Am I free to go?

Alternatively - pull out your note book and write as many notes of what just happened as you can including who said what. these are called Contemporaneous Notes. These carry just as much weight in court as the police officers notes because you took them at the time immediately after the encounter.

ONLY when in court: officer can you prove to this court with substantiating evidence this picture has not been digitally altered? - More reasonable doubt then bring up more doubts about the accuracy of the camera in situ, that's why you need to get the operators manuals.

Just looking through this and I don't know if you've decided which way to play it yet. If you're still undecided it might be worth thinking if you want to fight the speeding, or the request to name the driver. The two would need different tactics - for example no point in raising stuff about calibration if you're fighting the name the driver issue.

Hello all,

i sent this:
10th September 2018

With reference to the Notice of intended prosecution dated 20,8,18 and images received on about the 4,9,18

Reference number: 02xxxxxxxxx20
Eros number: Nxxxxx1A/1xxxxx7

Dear Gareth Morgan,

Although the vehicle registration number xxx xxxx is registered at the address stated on the infringement notice, I have not been provided with any material facts or evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I am the driver, presumed driver or the person in charge of the named vehicle or to be held responsible for such an alleged offence at the time of the alleged offence.  

There are quite a number of vehicles registered to this address, let alone others that are not.  Nonetheless, there are several people that reside here and ones that do not, but they all have full access to keys to use any of the vehicles for travel so long as they replace the fuel they consume and return it in the same condition.

There are significant penalties for providing false or misleading information. Therefore I cannot afford to take risks and make assumptions, guess or speculate as to who was or might have been driving the car at time the act took place.

Having applied reasonable due diligence to this matter, I am unable to state who was driving the car because I was not in the car at the time alleged offence occurred.

I kindly ask that you withdraw this Notice of intended prosecution.

I do not give consent to any of my private information to be passed to any 3rd party without my written consent.

Your sincerely
xxxxx

Interesting pitswi, i thought they would all be separate matters? Surely the first matter is who was "travelling"/driving, then is the gear sound?

Sorry, all of letter not showing, but i can get the jist of it.

I would use their wording to your advantage .They are making threats against you to name a driver ,you have already informed them that you are unable to identify the driver .Ask them if they are trying to coerce you to commit perjury by giving someones name when you have no knowledge if that person indeed committed the offense .

On another note I never fill in forms ,instead I provide the information asked for in a separate piece of paper, you will no doubt find their form is full of boxes and requires the use of all caps & black ink.
My advise would be give all the info asked for (except driver) but not on their form. I have a strong feeling they will not proceed if its not on the form.

As an example, earlier this year I was asked to give a witness statement re an assault .I wrote a witness statement & signed it ,Plod told me that was no good as it had to be on a form (MG11) l downloaded a sample ,it was full of boxes / all caps .I told plod there was no way I would be filling that in .I never heard another thing.

Recently have been talking this over with A.N.Other & they have suggested this (not my own work):

Someone needs to tell him to look at the relevant legislation and find the part were it says he has to provide the name of the driver  -  it will say he has to provide the FULL name and address, it will NOT say 'name and surname'. In fact i'm pretty sure that you will never find legislation that even mentions the surname.

He could complete the nip form in pencil, all lower case, and give the alleged offender's first name only (middle too, if he has one) then autograph the signature box with his own first and middle only, again in pencil. (Oh, and do not include postcodes).

When they demand he completes it in ink and give full names, he tells them he has provided full names and tells them that if they require 'surnames' he  offers to do so on condition they show him the legislation that says he must write in ink and provide surnames, and on condition they sign a letter in which they specifically request the surnames.

They can't do this, and you've not refused to give details, so they're stuck....

Even if it did say to provide the surname it places him in the position of 'data controller' in which case he could send them a 'sec29 data access request form' (or the new GDPR equivalent) saying that he can only provide such details once their data controller has signed it. They won't do that so they're stuck as you not refusing.

What i would do is swerve their form and write a notice in pencil:

                                                                                                   John Whitealbum,
                                                                                                   123 Letitbe Avenue,
                                                                                                    Longdaysnight.

                      Notice: Submittal of Requested Information;

                   Maxim: The Law does not expect the impossible;
Date

Dear plod,

I have been asked to provide details that would identify the driver in an alleged offence of speeding (note your inchoate instrument enclosed).

Having previously advised you of my uncertainty regarding the identity of said driver it appears I have been branded a liar, and have been threatened with severe legal sanction if I do not comply. This puts me in a quandary, as you are technically inciting me to commit fraud under coercion, and I don't wish to possibly falsely accuse another.

I now supply you with my best guess as to who was driving at that time in the expectation that you will reciprocate by providing the name of man or woman who claims that I am lying, that I might consider filing a claim for libel and incitement to fraud.

Having checked the relevant legislation I find no obligation to provide a 'surname', only a requirement to provide a 'full name'.

My best guess as to the driver that day, and their 'full name', is that it might have been john-paul, of 123 Beatle Street, Letitbe Avenue, Longdaysnight. Although in the interests of full disclosure he has in the past said he does not 'drive' but 'travels'. You must make of that what you will.

This fulfills any obligation I may have in this matter, I hope it helps.

By: john-paul,
Date.

Should they point out that the full name of a 'person' includes a surname, he offers to provide such on condition they explain the difference between 'man' and 'person'. They'll love that....

This is just commerce, not law, and it seems to be the way to deal with tickets of all kinds

I like that LS,
Also be aware of the ticking clock ,do not reply until a couple of days before any of their deadlines ,do this on all of their communications . Tick Tock

"The aim is to punish those who falsely claim they do not know who was driving."

Exactly what evidence proof have they got that people falsely claim they know not who was driving ?????????

Should they point out that the full name of a 'person' includes a surname, he offers to provide such on condition they explain the difference between 'man' and 'person'. They'll love that....

This is just commerce, not law, and it seems to be the way to deal with tickets of all kinds" Its the law of contract.

Your right on the mark with that. This is the path we all need to do down.

we did this when we were kids .... Ill show you mine if you show me yours.

According to Gordon Hall in Bellingham, everything someone says to us is a contractual offer.

Do people think that the Police might view this forum?

could this be of interest?

https://goodf.forumotion.com/t396-correspondence-from-the-pole-ice#2372

read start to finish!

Thanks all, very interesting, but still daunting.

Left it to the last moment, reply must be posted tomorrow! Noticed on the NIP:
Section A...it already states my name and address, so option to add name and address!
Any suggestions please???
Was going to go ahead with LionsShares' suggested letter.

I personally would be inclined to give the relevant info asked for on a separate piece of paper and not fill in their form.
You will then have complied with their request.
These corporate pirates often seem screwed when presented with something other than their official forms.

Thank you daveiron...i am considering sending this...if anyone can add or advise on better wording etc... i have until 4pm GMT


iamnot anumber
no6
the village

Notice: Submittal of Requested Information;

Maxim: The Law does not expect the impossible;

Date 10th October 2018

Dear Darren Bussler,

I have been asked to provide details that would identify the driver in an alleged offence of speeding (note your inchoate instrument enclosed).

Having previously advised you of my uncertainty regarding the identity of said driver it appears I have been branded a liar, and have been threatened with severe legal sanction if I do not comply. This puts me in a quandary, as you are technically inciting me to commit fraud under coercion, and I don't wish to possibly falsely accuse another.

I now supply you with my best guess as to who was behind the steering wheel of the car at that time in the expectation that you will reciprocate by providing the name of man or woman who claims that I am lying, that I might consider filing a claim for libel and incitement to fraud.

Having checked the relevant legislation I find no obligation to provide a 'surname', only a requirement to provide a 'full name'. If you can show me the legislation on a signed letter that says a man or woman must: a, fill out the NIP; b, write in black ink and c, provide a surname then I will comply to your demands.

My best guess as to the driver that day, and their 'full name', is that it might have been iamnot anumber, of the no6 village. Although in the interests of full disclosure he has in the past said he does not 'drive' but 'travels'. You must make of that what you will.

This fulfils any obligation I may have in this matter, I hope it helps.
My time is the most valuable commodity and any future correspondence will incur cost at the rate of:
£75 per hour (for any further research)
£40 per letter

By: iamnot anumber,
Date 10,10,18

“This legal notice adds to the Record Of The Parties”