£500 fine + 3 points???
13 June 2014, 07:21 PM
#3
Trending Topics
13 June 2014, 10:14 PM
#8
Sounds harsh. Plead ignorance & consult a solicitor. I'd just pay the fine & try to get away with the points. Everyone I know who has been court has just been made to remove the tints on the spot so it sounds like plod has shafted you.
14 June 2014, 12:07 PM
#13
As for the fancy Police car thing.... They are demonstrators that are leant to the Police by the manufacturers. They are not approved Police cars and do not belong to the forces. Most would be useless Police vehicles and would require specialist training to use them as such. Complete publicity stunts to promote cars.
And as I always remind people..... The Police do not receive the money from tickets on the road side or fines at court. It goes to the local government.
If people who are guilty think they should go to court they are stupid. You will just end up with a harsher penalty and court costs too! I saw a guy go to court for a £60 speeding ticket and come out with over £700 to pay... He was banged to rights but thought he would try to be clever.
14 June 2014, 01:27 PM
#15
But one fact I can share is that Wiltshire's safety camera partnership was racking in so much money from harassing innocent (by innocent I mean guilty) members of the public that it was closed down due to the people involved not being able to afford to run it.... The people working within in made redundant.
So not the best way of making money it seems.... Been closed down for years now and enforcement is left to roads policing officers which are almost non existent thanks to the current government.
I like Top gear as much as the next person but their facts on speed cameras are probably best enjoyed as entertainment only.
I know this has nothing to do with tints... which we all know are illegal anyway.
To the OP if you believe you have been dealt with outside of the law then you should complain... but I doubt you have been. A fine like that must have come from court?
14 June 2014, 04:44 PM
#17
Now i'm not going to sign up to read the whole story but who exactly fined him?
It obviously wasn't the officers who passed by? Then is mentions clamped? The Police don't tend to clamp and surely he was moving? Doesn't add up like all these sensationalist stories. I am sure its another case of "oh god look what happened what a great headline" then in the background it's all explained and sorted out but the headline still stands because nobody wants to hear that everything was alright in the end. They want to hear that the world has gone mad and we are all doomed. These things happen all the time and make great reading but if a person has a justifiable defense they will not be fined. There is also the other issue of people not being able to explain themselves properly of not bothering to explain.
After his refund "Courteous Dan" the white van man probably made another £500 out of the story.
Last edited by FMJ; 14 June 2014 at 04:47 PM.
14 June 2014, 06:14 PM
#18
We still need to the bottom of this with the op
I have never heard of more then a standard £60 fixed penalty fine for tints
£500
3 points
Did it go to court
Why did you let it go to court
What grading of tints were they ?
Was the £500 combined with any other offence ?
I have never heard of more then a standard £60 fixed penalty fine for tints
£500
3 points
Did it go to court
Why did you let it go to court
What grading of tints were they ?
Was the £500 combined with any other offence ?
14 June 2014, 06:19 PM
#19
We still need to the bottom of this with the op
I have never heard of more then a standard £60 fixed penalty fine for tints
£500
3 points
Did it go to court
Why did you let it go to court
What grading of tints were they ?
Was the £500 combined with any other offence ?
I have never heard of more then a standard £60 fixed penalty fine for tints
£500
3 points
Did it go to court
Why did you let it go to court
What grading of tints were they ?
Was the £500 combined with any other offence ?
Be good to know which force this was too.
14 June 2014, 06:21 PM
#20
If you have some inside information that I don't know about then please share.
But one fact I can share is that Wiltshire's safety camera partnership was racking in so much money from harassing innocent (by innocent I mean guilty) members of the public that it was closed down due to the people involved not being able to afford to run it.... The people working within in made redundant.
So not the best way of making money it seems.... Been closed down for years now and enforcement is left to roads policing officers which are almost non existent thanks to the current government.
I like Top gear as much as the next person but their facts on speed cameras are probably best enjoyed as entertainment only.
I know this has nothing to do with tints... which we all know are illegal anyway.
To the OP if you believe you have been dealt with outside of the law then you should complain... but I doubt you have been. A fine like that must have come from court?
But one fact I can share is that Wiltshire's safety camera partnership was racking in so much money from harassing innocent (by innocent I mean guilty) members of the public that it was closed down due to the people involved not being able to afford to run it.... The people working within in made redundant.
So not the best way of making money it seems.... Been closed down for years now and enforcement is left to roads policing officers which are almost non existent thanks to the current government.
I like Top gear as much as the next person but their facts on speed cameras are probably best enjoyed as entertainment only.
I know this has nothing to do with tints... which we all know are illegal anyway.
To the OP if you believe you have been dealt with outside of the law then you should complain... but I doubt you have been. A fine like that must have come from court?
1. So called "safety camera partnerships" are made up of the council, the police and the local magistrates. Fact.
2. Wiltshire...ah yes, had hundreds of cameras. They were an invaluable tool against the awful crime of speeding since "Speed kills" don't y'know? Then HMG announced that THEY were keeping all the fines. And overnight, the cameras were suddenly deemed not a good way to police, and switched off. Fact.
Anything else you need enlightenment on?
14 June 2014, 06:44 PM
#21
Did I not mention that something like this might happen to you with your choice of modifications in another thread you posted about you wanting a super-duper loud exhaust?
Fight it if you think it is unfair, but they will make your life a misery in future if you do. And the chances of winning are slim to none. It will cost you more than 500 in solicitor fees to fight it anyway
Fight it if you think it is unfair, but they will make your life a misery in future if you do. And the chances of winning are slim to none. It will cost you more than 500 in solicitor fees to fight it anyway
15 June 2014, 06:42 AM
#24
15 June 2014, 09:11 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Dudley
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pay up and shut up. You know they are illegal if they are tinted too much, so why do you think you can complain after you are caught. They look shat anyway front tints, only hide ugly people who think they look like baddasses.. you get me!
Last edited by grey_boy; 15 June 2014 at 09:45 AM.
15 June 2014, 09:36 AM
#27
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the fast lane
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not true.
All offences are dealt with on a scale of severity. For example a minor infringement such as dodgy number plates will not carry the same penalty as driving without insurance, driving without due care will not carry the same penalty as drink driving.
If the facts here are as presented by the OP, then he has been dealt with unnecessarily harshly in my view. However there may be circumstances we haven't been made aware of which might shed a light on the reason why such a harsh penalty has been applied.
All offences are dealt with on a scale of severity. For example a minor infringement such as dodgy number plates will not carry the same penalty as driving without insurance, driving without due care will not carry the same penalty as drink driving.
If the facts here are as presented by the OP, then he has been dealt with unnecessarily harshly in my view. However there may be circumstances we haven't been made aware of which might shed a light on the reason why such a harsh penalty has been applied.
15 June 2014, 09:38 AM
#28
If you have font tints and are involved in an accident would you actually be insured, especially if, for instance, you wipe out someone whilst turning out of a junction? Really dark front tints are a menace and dangerous.
15 June 2014, 12:45 PM
#30
Perhaps YOU need to do some research.
1. So called "safety camera partnerships" are made up of the council, the police and the local magistrates. Fact.
2. Wiltshire...ah yes, had hundreds of cameras. They were an invaluable tool against the awful crime of speeding since "Speed kills" don't y'know? Then HMG announced that THEY were keeping all the fines. And overnight, the cameras were suddenly deemed not a good way to police, and switched off. Fact.
Anything else you need enlightenment on?
1. So called "safety camera partnerships" are made up of the council, the police and the local magistrates. Fact.
2. Wiltshire...ah yes, had hundreds of cameras. They were an invaluable tool against the awful crime of speeding since "Speed kills" don't y'know? Then HMG announced that THEY were keeping all the fines. And overnight, the cameras were suddenly deemed not a good way to police, and switched off. Fact.
Anything else you need enlightenment on?
1. I know I never said otherwise.
2. Actually it was 19 cameras.... not hundreds.
As for the reason for removal. That depends which slanted reporter you believe. As I understand it the real reason was the funding for it being dropped by about a quarter and then it was going to be dropped further, maybe completely leaving the Police and local government to fund it.
If they made as much money as people think it would be easy to fund them by just putting more cameras up. Again if they made loads of money then the Police would just employ civilians to operate the vans that they already have sat gathering dust to recoup money. The local government would receive the funds but they are all in one big money making scam right? And now with PCC's deciding what the Police do it would make even more sense. But they don't. Fairly certain it costs the state more then £100 to catch and process a traffic offence.