ScoobyNet.com - Subaru Enthusiast Forum

ScoobyNet.com - Subaru Enthusiast Forum (https://www.scoobynet.com/)
-   Non Scooby Related (https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby-related-4/)
-   -   Done by speed camera in Cleveland? (https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby-related-4/527654-done-by-speed-camera-in-cleveland.html)

hedgehog 05 July 2006 10:49 AM

Done by speed camera in Cleveland?
 
Cleveland Crown Court have just set a precedent and anyone who has been done for speeding in the Cleveland Police area since 2000 should now be in a position to claim their cash back, have the points removed and they may also wish to consider claiming "expenses" depending upon the impact of the points.

Clearly this will have important implications for anyone banned because of the points and such people would probably be best to see a solicitor specialising in motoring matters. If you can prove significant losses then I would expect there could be a substantial pile of cash coming your way.

danwrx1980 05 July 2006 11:11 AM

Why's that then? The precedent I mean. Any background?
And anyone have any idea what this means for the rest of the country?

Dan.

OllyK 05 July 2006 11:26 AM


Originally Posted by hedgehog
Cleveland Crown Court have just set a precedent and anyone who has been done for speeding in the Cleveland Police area since 2000 should now be in a position to claim their cash back, have the points removed and they may also wish to consider claiming "expenses" depending upon the impact of the points.

Clearly this will have important implications for anyone banned because of the points and such people would probably be best to see a solicitor specialising in motoring matters. If you can prove significant losses then I would expect there could be a substantial pile of cash coming your way.

It's not April 1st is it? :Suspiciou

Leslie 05 July 2006 12:17 PM

Have you got more details, such as the reason behing it all Hedgehog?

Les

D1CCY 05 July 2006 12:33 PM

I read somewhere this was to do with the penalty notice not being signed by an "authorised person" so it wasn't legal. This had been going on in Cleveland since the Chief Constable changed in 2000 and the new one hadn't given official authority to the clerk that sent the forms out. The circumstances are a one off for that area.

Cheers, Diccy.

hedgehog 05 July 2006 01:13 PM

D1CCY is correct, the court appears to have ruled (I haven't seen the transcript) that the NIPs were, in effect, being issued by a clerk and so were not being issued by or on behalf of the Chief Constable of Cleveland.

Those who are reluctant to fight the cameras should note that this was actually the secondary defence in the particular case, though it is the one with most impact. Mr. Dehany was initially fighting the case on the basis that no Traffic Order applied to the road and so no speed limit applied. It is believed that the traffic order problem applies to 120,000 NIPs but that the clerk issuing the NIPs problem will apply to a very many more people.

In their rush to get your cash the camera partnerships are doing so many illegal things that it looks as if very few NIPs are actually legal.

The BBC report on the CC problem is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/5148224.stm

Leslie 06 July 2006 12:10 PM

Thanks, I saw it a bit later.

Les


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:29 PM.


© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands