Speeding ticket

Hello, I have received a notice of intended prosecution. I have written a letter:

What do you think I should do/any changes?

Dear Sir/Madam

I write with reference to your Notice of Intended Prosecution dated 8th November 2021. I must admit that I do not understand the alleged offence and I am requesting clarification of a few points. I note that you are contemplating proceedings against the driver of a motor vehicle identified as a XXX. While, I do own a private automobile which fits that description, it is not a motor vehicle as defined in section 185(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as “a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads” since the use of the indefinite article “a” at the beginning of the sentence means that it is not necessarily a vehicle, in the same way that an apple might be defined as “a round, red fruit”, plums and cherries share the same attributes but they are not apples, nor are they different types of apple.

Furthermore, having consulted a number of legal dictionaries I find that the definition of a driver is one who is engaged in commerce on the road. For example Black’s Law Dictionary defines a driver as: “One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horse, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car.” And since I have never, ever engaged in commerce upon the road it appears that I am not a driver and I have never engaged in the practice of driving.

Can a man or woman who is not driving a vehicle be charged with the alleged offence?
The alleged offence apparently took place at XXX on XXX at XXX. It is quite possible that I was travelling in my private automobile at that time, and on that day but I am not familiar with A30 MINIZIES LAYBY, NR JCT WITH WARLEGGAN AND ST NEOT, CORNWALL so can neither confirm nor deny my location.

Please could you provide photographic and/or video evidence of the allegation?
So that I can properly identify if it was my private automobile and if so, who the driver was. Even through I have made detailed enquires, and exercised due diligence while making those enquiries, I cannot, with any certainty, know who was driving the car at that time. Due to the heavy penalties for providing false and misleading information, I cannot lie on a Stat Declaration so I cannot risk making a statement that may, at some future point, turn out to be false,

Could you provide the name of the injured party and his or her sworn testimony detailing the nature of the tort?
Please provide satisfactory answers to these three questions with substance and accompanying documentation and proofs in Affidavit format sworn under oath or attestation, under penalty of perjury and upon your full commercial liability that the facts contained therein are true, correct, complete and not misleading.

If I do not receive such a response conforming to the above criteria within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, it will be deemed a tacit agreement by your acquiescence that no offence took place and that all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon me.

I must also decline your offer to complete the form on the reverse of the Notice of Intended Prosecution as I am not willing to provide consent or evidence for use in any subsequent prosecution of this alleged offence. Also, since the paragraphs instructing me to complete the form both appear within boxes upon the face of the document then the ‘Four Corners’ rule applies and thus may be disregarded without dishonour.


Sincerely without malice, ill will, vexation or frivolity

The only problem i can spot is the argument that as you are using DVLA
plates you may be deemed to be conforming to their regulations.
Maybe argue along the lines of as the dvla plates are not easy to remove
they are left on in the event someone who may at times use your motor
be engaged in commerce.

could also add:

please show the physical exchange of goods, monies & or services at the time of the alleged.... - if commerce cannot be shown to be taking place then how can RTA1988 be sanctioned/applied in this instance?

what alot of people are now seeing is the removal of any modicum of sense, everything is PERSON & everything is commercial, everything else is ignored.

what about adapting info from this vid?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rzM0KzScMg

the bit about halsbury, also if it went to court the UK £ being FIAT, false & fake etc?

the foloowing link is to do with the vid above, look for the section in a blue square marked Travel, 2 docs to download.
https://unchainedremedy.com/files-section/

could use sections 3 & 4 but really the whole act should be read:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/crossheading/fraud

TBH you could go on & on regarding all types of docs to throw in a massive collection of paperwork, mostly it gets ignored, keep it simple, to the point & possibly no more than 1 side of A4.

To finish off, remember these people are completely corrupt.

what about asking: the name of the place is.... surely that's hearsay? how can coppers prove the name of a place?

By the time study of this subject is complete so much info could be put together that should stop them dead, but.... there's always a but. It all gets ignored, all THEY want is total co-operation.

Completely corrupt.

(2362)

as stated this goes on & on & on.......:

https://goodf.forumotion.com/t5423-having-probelms-with-coppers-council-nhs-or-some-other-scum#36867

So much has been written on this subject on this site its hard to remember where it all is.
https://goodf.forumotion.com/t5184-obtaining-remedy-its-easier-than-you-think?highlight=Obtaining+remedy+Its+Easier+Than+You+Think

read whole thread but posts 8, 9 below.
https://goodf.forumotion.com/t4396-getting-3-points-removed-from-a-driver-s-license?highlight=Getting+3+points+removed+from+a+driver+s+license

this really goes on & on & on.......

here's more:

as buggs bunny used to say - what's up doc, (chews a carrot or 2) that's all folks

don't forget:
https://goodf.forumotion.com/t5413-why-use-square-brackets#36835

& this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBXD8dcrPGA

I think you've covered everything there LS!

Mrblue2015 wrote:I think you've covered everything there LS!

not quite, there's the Sir Jack Beetson speech & the One Peoples' Public Trust & the....

the list goes on & on & on......

Can I suggest a slight revision in tactics here? This would be to name the driver as requested, then defend the actual speeding allegation if you so wish. It's a situation that we see only too often, people ignore the original S172 request, or send material that's irrelevant at that stage, and end up with 6 points and an £800 fine.

To explain a bit further.

The points raised in the first post relate to the alleged speeding offence. However at this stage they are asking for driver details and that only requires that an offence has been alleged. The merits of the allegation are not considered. The relevant points are (1) was the request for driver details properly made? (2) is the recipient "the person keeping the vehicle" or is he "any other person"?, (3) was the required information supplied?, and (4) if not then does any statutory defence apply?

Naming yourself as driver at the time does not in any way form an admission of the alleged offence, and doesn't prevent a not guilty plea and defence should the speeding be pursued.

flyingfish wrote:Naming yourself as driver at the time does not in any way form an admission of the alleged offence, and doesn't prevent a not guilty plea and defence should the speeding be pursued.

FF is correct as naming yourself does not form an admission, however if you download the docs from the link I suggested above, the 1st does state right out about filling in even nameing yourself, its the 2nd that's of interest.

You would be sent a 2nd form generally with 3 (not always) options, its how you proceed from here that counts. THEY will want a 2nd signature & that forms contract as to how this proceeds next.

My view is that if you were to name someone (anyone) as the driver then you would be showing that you do indeed have an understanding of their meaning of driver, either assumed or not. It would then be pointless to state or use as a defence later the followig:

"Furthermore, having consulted a number of legal dictionaries I find that the definition of a driver is one who is engaged in commerce on the road. For example Black’s Law Dictionary defines a driver as: “One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horse, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car.” And since I have never, ever engaged in commerce upon the road it appears that I am not a driver and I have never engaged in the practice of driving".

There is no obligation on them to explain the meaning of words, but should you wish to follow that route then I would suggest that you leave that statement out for now and simply write to them and ask them to define the meaning of the word driver as you do not have a leagal understanding of this word or it's meaning and do not wish to make a mistake. Also ask them where they have obtained the definition so that you are able to confirm the meaning for yourself and if need be have the oppotunity to seek advice.

They will more than likely write back to you repeating the demand to name the driver and give you a further 28 day's to do so as there is no onus on them to explain anything. The onus will be on you to seek leagal advice.

I may well be wrong but their meaning of driver may be burried somewhere in the road traffic act.
I have not been able to find a definition for it in the act, but that does not mean that it is not there. Maybe someone else who is more astute could take a look for it.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents

I don't think there's any merit in chewing over the meaning of perfectly ordinary English words, it's certainly not going to be a winning argument in Magistrates or even Crown court.

Just as an aside I always have a bit of a chuckle when people come out with that definition of "driver", but don't both looking up "employed" in the same dictionary!

Thanks for your replies.

I spoke to a friend of mine who said he tried a letter like this regarding speeding, but said he got fined 900 quid and given 6 points.

He said the failsafe route is: He named someone else "a foreign name" who lives at "X address," and so it went back to the police. They then sent the NIP to X address. He then went to that address and picked up the NIP to which he contacted the police and said, "This person used to live here but has now gone back to foreign country."

He said he had done it about 10 times.

What doth thou think of that one?

It seems this has already half been done since it is a company car, via my dad, I am not the registered keeper. I am a named driver, so the company contacted him and he said to them it must have been my son. So the company filled out the form with my name, license number etc, and so it went to me... to which I am then saying "it must have been X person."

So then I guess I then say, "No, i think it was a someone else - here is there address." Then I have actually done my legal duty, because I cannot be sure I was driving and others have driven my car.

?

Some of this comes down to whether you were "the person keeping the vehicle" or not as that determines your responsibilities  Firstly in terms of S172, either ...

(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police [F3or the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force]

or ..

(b)any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

What the Police have started to do when a foreign driver is named is to ask for evidence that the person had insurance in place.  The onus is then on whoever permitted that person to drive to produce such evidence. The penalty is the same as for driving without insurance yourself, although the endorsement code is different. If this is a company car then hopefully it has insurance that covers any driver without reference to UK licence or anything.  If not they you need to be prepared to address this issue if it is raised. You don't want to land your dad in trouble either.

TBH as stated possibly challenge the commerce & have a good look at the 2nd letter in the download from above, when I had my ticket last I put in all sorts & it got ignored, keep things simple & don't bother trying to argue legally this or that, you will get tied up in knots.

Above all don't tell lies! Very important, challenge everything of the utmost importance to THEM (commerce) & who knows, just may be you may actually get somewhere?

it really is up to you!