A while back I recieved a speeding fine and I did the old trick of getting the wife to fill the details in and me not sign it.
Today I have recieved a summons that goes like this:-
1. On 06/11/04 on the A610 Road at nottingham, you drove a motor vehicle namely a motor car TBZ7353 on the restricted namely the A610 road at a speed exceeding 30 MPH. Contrary to sections 81(1) and 89(1) of the Road traffic regulation act 1984 and the schedule 2 to the road traffic offenders act 1988.
2. Between 16/12/04 and 17/01/05
at Arnold Nottinghamshire, you having been required by or on behalf of the chief officer of the police for Nottinghamshire failed to give information which it was in your power to give and which might have led to the identification of the driver of a vehicle, namely a motor car TBZ7375, who was alledged to have been guilty of an offence, contrary to section 172(3) of the road traffic act 1988 and schedule 2 to the road traffic offenders act 1988.
Right then, today is the first time I have been told about part 2. Should they not have informed me about this before, and how much of the above can they get to stick? and if I'm completely honest, I don't remember thinking, "shit - I went too fast there". I know that the lack of signature thing has now been quashed and you can't use it but I didn't know this at the time when I did it.
Can anyone suggest a way around this? or should I be asking for any evidence in the mean time?
A while back I recieved a speeding fine and I did the old trick of getting the wife to fill the details in and me not sign it.
Today I have recieved a summons that goes like this:-
1. On 06/11/04 on the A610 Road at nottingham, you drove a motor vehicle namely a motor car TBZ7353 on the restricted namely the A610 road at a speed exceeding 30 MPH. Contrary to sections 81(1) and 89(1) of the Road traffic regulation act 1984 and the schedule 2 to the road traffic offenders act 1988.
2. Between 16/12/04 and 17/01/05
at Arnold Nottinghamshire, you having been required by or on behalf of the chief officer of the police for Nottinghamshire failed to give information which it was in your power to give and which might have led to the identification of the driver of a vehicle, namely a motor car TBZ7375, who was alledged to have been guilty of an offence, contrary to section 172(3) of the road traffic act 1988 and schedule 2 to the road traffic offenders act 1988.
Right then, today is the first time I have been told about part 2. Should they not have informed me about this before, and how much of the above can they get to stick? and if I'm completely honest, I don't remember thinking, "shit - I went too fast there". I know that the lack of signature thing has now been quashed and you can't use it but I didn't know this at the time when I did it.
Can anyone suggest a way around this? or should I be asking for any evidence in the mean time?
Thanks in advance.
Cos