Mortimer’s Guide To Armchair Anarchy #5 – How To Deal With Speeding Offences

Okay, so it’s been a while since I wrote my last instalment, but I reckon enough time has elapsed to avoid any repercussions for this one. Besides, I’m not admitting guilt here, merely showing you how to exercise your rights as a citizen and correspond accordingly when confronted with a Notice of Intended Prosecution.

How To Deal With Speeding Offences

I can hear feet hitting pedals from here

Firstly, it is my belief that there shouldn’t be any speeding restrictions on the roads, merely guidelines.

Okay, so that may sound somewhat controversial and irresponsible, but personally I think it would be a much more healthy society if people learned to take responsibility for their own actions. For example, imagine a world where speed signs such as “20” actually meant “it is advisable that you travel at 20 mph in this area, otherwise, if you go over that limit and accidentally kill someone, you’ll be taken away and executed.”

With that kind of law in place it’d be interesting to see how many people are brave enough to break the speed limit then.

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is the only phrase I like from the Bible and the only one that makes any sense to me. However, in this fucked up and dumbed down Christian society it seems we are to be treated like retarded children, wrapped up in cotton wool, with every measure put in place to diminish personal responsibility and make life difficult and awkward for everyone involved. Not only is it against the law to travel over 20 mph in many built up areas, but it’s virtually impossible without buggering up your vehicle’s suspension whilst driving over a series of speed bumps that look like a range of Munros.

But I digress.

Personally I have no problem with 20 mph zones in built-up areas where kids might be playing. What I object to is hidden speed cameras on the motorway, specifically set up in such a way that you can’t help getting nailed if you drop your attention for a single second.

grrr

You all know the scene. You’re cruising down some duel carriageway at 70 mph when all of a sudden, out of nowhere, there’s a temporary 50 sign slapped up with a white unmarked van parked in the lay-by several yards after it. You slam the breaks on, almost losing control of the vehicle to try get from 70 to 50, but it’s too damned late. The white van is a mobile camera unit and you’ve just been nailed for three penalty points and a 60 quid fine on top of it, just to piss you off further.

But, the reality is that it’s not really about pissing you off, it’s about the government milking motorists for revenue.

According to a recent Telegraph article, speeding tickets are earning the treasury £250,000 every day, with the intention of making £88 million a year without any apparent impact on road safety whatsoever.

My own advice is to do what I did and replace your car with a bicycle. That way you can completely ignore all the rules, skip lights, bounce onto pavements and cycle home hammered whenever you want.

With a bike you have no registration number, and if the fuzz see you doing something illegal, you can give them the slip real easy down some side street that is too narrow for a car and too fast for the foot patrol.

But it ain’t easy getting rid of your car in a country that has deliberately piss-poor public transport. So, you now know you’ve just been caught by a speed camera. What the hell are you going to do?

Well, the first thing you should expect is a Notice of Intended Prosecution to arrive through your letterbox.

This should arrive within 48 hours and will tell you that “In accordance with Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, 1988,” you have been given notice that “it is intended to take proceeding against the driver of the after-mentioned motor vehicle.”

The first thing to note here is that you have not actually been prosecuted for anything yet and that it is an Alleged Speeding Offence and a Notice of Intended Prosecution.

In other words they need you to admit your own guilt.

How do they do this?

By providing you with a form where you basically sign your name saying that you were indeed the driver of the vehicle and that you did indeed commit the offence.

So, lesson number 1 is to take the Notice of Intended Prosecution and throw it out with the trash. If it comes by Recorded Delivery, hand it back to your postman and tell him to return it to the sender. Don’t give him any reason, you are not obliged to accept a Recorded Delivery and are not responsible for any mail that comes through your door. Remember, ignorance isn’t a crime in this country…yet.

Now, I know the notice will have some scary words written in it like “£1000 fine” “Procurator Fiscal” and “6 penalty points.” But quit being a big girl’s blouse and grow some balls. Phrases like “failure to fill in this form is an offence under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988” are only there to frighten you. If you do not respond to the notice in 28 days they will merely send you out another one like this:

—–

Dear Sir/Madam,

ALLEGED SPEEDING OFFENCE

I refer to the after-mentioned vehicle, which was detected by Speed Camera equipment exceeding the statutory speed limit at the time, date, and location, specified below.

PARTICULARS OF ALLEGED OFFENCE

Time of Offence : XX:XX Hrs

Date of Offence : XX-XXX-200X

Location of Offence : XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Make / Model of Vehicle : Ford (UK) Fiesta

Registration Mark : SXXX XXX

Speed Limit Applicable : 60 Miles Per Hour

Speed Detected : 70 Miles Per Hour

Contrary to Section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

On XX-XXX-200X a Notice of Intended Prosecution, together with a Form B requiring you to supply the name and address of the driver was sent to you by Royal Mail.

To date no reply has been received, I would therefore be grateful of a response as a matter of urgency in order that this enquiry can be progressed.

I have enclosed a further Form B. Failure to complete and return this Form within 14 days WILL result in the matter being passed to the Police for direct enquiry and report as necessary.

FAILURE TO SUPPLY THESE DETAILS RENDERS YOU LIABLE TO PROSECUTION.

[signature]

On Behalf of the Chief Constable.

—–

Okay. Now, I’m not admitting that I actually threw away my first Notice of Intended Prosecution but they need to prove that you received it. So, now it’s time for you to grow even bigger balls. It’s been over 14 days since the alleged offence and if you play your cards right and correspond in a similar manner as I am about to show from my working example, you will get off with this scot-free.

—–

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to your letter of XX-XXX-200X – I’d like to first of all state that it is not my intention to delay the enquiry into this alleged speeding offence, however, there are a number of issues concerning it which renders me unable to fill in Form B which you supplied.

Firstly, your letter states that on XX-XXX-200X a Notice of Intended Prosecution was issued to me by Royal Mail. This notice was never received by me and your letter of XX-XXX-200X was in fact the first of me being aware that there were any allegations of an offence. Can you confirm that the notice was sent? Was the letter sent by Recorded or Special Delivery? If so I’m sure the letter can be tracked. Living in a block of flats, I have often found that mail can be delivered to the wrong address.

Secondly, given that it has now been almost two months since the alleged offence, I am unable to recall if my vehicle was or was not in the area during that time. Being a keen hill-walker I am often in different areas of the country on my weekends, but cannot recall for certain where I was that specific weekend due to the time that has passed since then.

Please understand that before I can accurately fill in the form, I need to know if I was in that area and if I was driving the vehicle, as sometimes a friend will take a turn at driving if long distances are being covered that weekend.

Your notice states that Speed Camera equipment was used to detect the speed of the vehicle. Can you provide me with photographic or videographic evidence to determine if the vehicle was in the said area and preferably who was driving at the time?

Since receiving the Notice of Intended Prosecution I also decided to seek legal advice given that I am concerned about this being the first of me learning of the alleged offence. From what I was told, in order for the notice to be valid it must be issued within 14 days of the alleged offence. The reason for this, as I understand it, is to serve the notice whilst the alleged offence is still fresh in the memory of the potential defendant. However, apparently even if I have not received the notice within 14 days it may be still valid if it has been posted within that 14 day period. Please can you provide proof that the Notice of Intended Prosecution was sent and preferably proof of its reception, either through Recorded or Special Delivery tracking. Royal Mail should be able to provide this information and I am more than happy to look into it myself if you can provide me with the tracking number of the notice.

I look forward to having this matter cleared up quickly without any negative repercussions and can only accept responsibility when the evidence I have requested has been supplied to me.

Regards,

George T. Mortimer.

—–

Dear Sir/Madam,

ALLEGED SPEEDING OFFENCE

I refer to our correspondence relative to the after-mentioned vehicle, which was detected by Speed Camera equipment exceeding the statutory speed limit at the time, date, and location, specified below.

PARTICULARS OF ALLEGED OFFENCE

Time of Offence : XX:XX Hrs

Date of Offence : XX-XXX-200X

Location of Offence : XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Make / Model of Vehicle : Ford (UK) Fiesta

Registration Mark : SXXX XXX

Speed Limit Applicable : 60 Miles Per Hour

Speed Detected : 70 Miles Per Hour

Contrary to Section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

I am in receipt of your letter of XX-XXX-200X.

The initial Notice of Intended Prosecution was sent out from this office on XX-XXX-200X. A Certificate of Posting is held on file for this offence, should it ever be required for Court purposes.

The videographic evidence for this offence is rear view of the vehicle and would therefore not be of any help in the identification of the driver. However the purpose of the camera is to identify the vehicle, this it has done. It is your responsibility to identify the driver, under terms of Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Failure to do so is an offence separate to that of speeding.

I enclose a further Form B for completion.

Yours faithfully,

[signature]

On behalf of the Chief Constable.

—–

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your prompt response of XX-XXX-200X.

Whilst I appreciate that you may indeed have sent out an initial Notice of Intended Prosecution on XX-XXX-200X, it doesn’t change the fact that I did not receive it. As stated in my previous missive, the first of me hearing about the alleged offence was in your letter of XX-XXX-200X.

I also appreciate that whilst a Certificate of Posting is held on file, it doesn’t exactly guarantee reception of the aforementioned Notice. Proof of posting is hardly proof of reception, and one would have thought that a Royal Mail Recorded or Special Delivery service might have been more appropriate for tracking the item in question.

I understand, however, that you may not be aware that I live in a tenement block where 7 other flats come under the same address as my own. Mail can often be delivered incorrectly and a system for tracking something as important as an Intended Prosecution would have been advisable if the Safety Camera Dept wanted to ensure that the charge remain valid by guaranteeing delivery to my address within 14 days.

Since this has not occurred and you state that the videographic evidence for this alleged offence is the rear view of the vehicle, I am afraid that this doesn’t particularly help me recollect my exact whereabouts on the day of this alleged offence. To be quite honest, I’m not sure where I was at all that whole specific weekend, however, I will point out that it is extremely rare for me to use the road that the alleged offence took place on at any time as I much prefer driving the more scenic country roads.

Whilst I appreciate that the purpose of the camera is to identify the vehicle and that it is my responsibility to identify the driver, I think anyone would have difficulty trying to recall their exact location and interactions two months ago on a specific date and time. Are you sure, for example, that the camera has picked up my registration plate properly and that an error has not occurred? For all I know it could be another vehicle with forged plates.

I do fully understand your point that it is an offence not to identify the driver, but I would also think that it is equally an offence to give false information based on a guess at best.

As I’m sure you understand, I now find myself between a rock and a hard place with this matter and don’t know how to respond other than by truthfully explaining my predicament. It is honestly not my intention to withhold information, but if I am unable to recall that information then what on earth do I do?

To be honest, I feel a little like I am being pressured into accepting this charge when I don’t think it is at all fair given that I cannot genuinely recall my whereabouts that weekend.

As a result, it is with regret that I cannot fill in the Form B that you requested as I would be afraid of giving false information based on an assumption.

I hope this helps and once again I’d like to emphasise that it is not my intention to stall or delay your enquiries into this matter.

Yours faithfully,

George T. Mortimer.

—–

Dear Sir/Madam,

ALLEGED SPEEDING OFFENCE

I refer to our previous correspondence relative to the after-mentioned vehicle, which was detected by Speed Camera equipment exceeding the statutory speed limit at the time, date, and location, specified below.

PARTICULARS OF ALLEGED OFFENCE

Time of Offence : XX:XX Hrs

Date of Offence : XX-XXX-200X

Location of Offence : XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Make / Model of Vehicle : Ford (UK) Fiesta

Registration Mark : SXXX XXX

Speed Limit Applicable : 60 Miles Per Hour

Speed Detected : 70 Miles Per Hour

Contrary to Section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

I am in receipt of your letter of XX-XXX-200X.

I enclose for your attention ‘stills’ taken from the videographic evidence. I also enclose a further Form B for your attention.

Failure to receive completed Form B by XX-XXX-200X, will result in this matter being passed on to your local Police for direct enquiry and report to the Procurator Fiscal.

Yours faithfully,

[signature]

On behalf of the Chief Constable.

—–

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your prompt response of XX-XXX-200X and for supplying ‘stills’ taken from video footage of the alleged offence. Whilst this is much appreciated, it doesn’t really clear up the matter and I would in fact suggest that it only adds further to the ambiguity of this incident.

I will therefore hereby outline my concerns in bullet points as follows and suggest that if you are still not satisfied with my honest answers then perhaps it would indeed make sense for you to pass this matter on to my local Police who can then highlight this incident to the Procurator Fiscal. I personally would welcome this as a positive step in the right direction and hope that it would allow us to get to the heart of the matter.

Here then follows my main concerns:

• Whilst the ‘stills’ do indeed show a vehicle similar in colour to my own, the registration number is extremely grainy and not at all clear. I would have thought that a crisper image would have been required to pinpoint the vehicle as being my own. My initial thought is that the first character of the registration plate is a “G” (and not an “S” as assumed) and that the sixth character is not even discernable at all. Given the difficulty in discerning these characters, I do not see how one can be certain that the other characters are interpreted correctly either.

• No driver is visible in the ‘stills’ therefore if it were my vehicle (which I don’t think it is) I am still unable to recall who may have been the driver, let alone why my vehicle would be on a road I generally avoid.

• The make and model of the vehicle is not clear from the ‘stills’. Whilst one would be initially inclined to assume this is a Ford Fiesta, it might equally be a Mazda 121 which is essentially identical to a Ford Fiesta with but Mazda badging.

• Your second photo shows the vehicle alongside two other vehicles to the left. It is therefore impossible from the photo to determine which of these vehicles is travelling at 70 mph.

• Given that it has been over two months now since the alleged offence, I am no further forward to recalling my whereabouts at the time. Whilst I appreciate that you may have proof that the Notice of Intended Prosecution was posted to me on XX-XXX-200X (and I have no reason to doubt that it was) I can quite categorically state that the Notice was never received by me. Therefore, the legal requirement of issuing a Notice of Intended Prosecution within 14 days has not been met and as a result I believe you are legally unable to proceed against me.

Whilst you have highlighted that it is an offence for me not to identify the driver by filling in the Form B that you supplied, I’d like to highlight that I don’t think it is lawful that I should be pressured into giving unascertained information simply to aid the Police in their intended prosecution. Whilst the vehicle looks similar to my own, I cannot recall being in that location, at the designated date and time, and for me to tell you that I was out of fear of reprisal would require that I lie on a legal document. I am not happy about making a vague assumption of this kind, therefore I would much prefer if the matter was either dropped or handed to the Procurator Fiscal for examination.

I hope this clarifies the matter and trust that the appropriate course of action will be taken.

Yours faithfully,

George T. Mortimer.

—–

And so ended any further communication from that specific constabulary. Whilst this working example clearly highlights a number of issues concerning my own case in this matter, the important thing for anyone to remember when confronted with a Notice of Intended Prosecution is what is stated on the 5th bullet point of my last letter: the legal requirement of issuing a Notice of Intended Prosecution must be within 14 days of the alleged offence.

End of story.

George T. Mortimer is the editor and webmaster of the amazing Media Underground, as well as being the author of The Probationer’s Handbook, and The Key of it All. In each article, Mort will be teaching you ways of keeping ‘The Man’ on his toes’, and all from the comfort of your home.