Can the police do this?

[sillywoman]

I was stopped and issued with a fixed penalty notice back in October (MOT had run out - I hold my hands up). The printed form of the ticket said the penalty was ?60, but the policeman crossed the amount out manually and wrote ?100 instead. I paid the ?60 by cheque and now have an increased fine for ?150.

My question is can they alter the amounts manually like that? Is it legal? I mean surely they could write in any old amount they felt like? Do I challenge further on this? I don't have the resources for proper legal advice, but this does just feel wrong to me that they should be able to do this.

Please help me make up my mind whether to sigh and pay-up with heavy heart, or fight the injustice.

[Otta]

According to this the correct amount is 100 quid.

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/motoring/mot/9947.html

Which suggests they were using outdated forms. I'd challenge on that basis.

[Lowlander]

Why did you not (a) ask the police officer and (b) search the internet - taken me 0.27 seconds to find this https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q203.htm

Normally I'd suggest appealing but in this case the officer has clearly endorsed the ticket...

[sillywoman]

Thanks Otta, Lowlander I didn't ask the officer because I didn't look at the ticket (given at the side of the south circular, in rush hour and I was quite embarrassed) until I got to work. It was only then that I realised that the ticket is for ?60, but he'd crossed the figure out & written ?100 over it.

Can I ask what you mean about the officer 'clearly endorsing' the ticket? Do you mean it's legal for him to write a new figure over the top of the figure printed. I did look on the internet but couldn't find the answer to this question - it doesn't appear to be on the link you've posted either - unless it's staring me in the face & I'm just missing it somehow.

[El Pibe]

From what I can work out non endorsable (ie no points on your licence) tickets are 60 quid, endorsable ones 100 quid (and upwards).

No MOT is the exception to the former infringements with a ?100 fine.

I'm guessing they don't have a seperate form for that, so as Otta suggested they just scrawl the larger figure on the non endorsable pentalty charge ticket.

I doubt you'll be able to contest it though i've heard of people contesting less clear cut cases and winning.

Either way I'd suggest you cough up and reclaim, as the fine could keep growing with continued failure to pay.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Would have thought the changed figure should be initialled and dated to be legally binding - did that happen?

[Lowlander]

sillywoman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks Otta, Lowlander I didn't ask the officer

> because I didn't look at the ticket (given at the

> side of the south circular, in rush hour and I was

> quite embarrassed) until I got to work. It was

> only then that I realised that the ticket is for

> ?60, but he'd crossed the figure out & written

> ?100 over it.

>

> Can I ask what you mean about the officer 'clearly

> endorsing' the ticket? Do you mean it's legal for

> him to write a new figure over the top of the

> figure printed. I did look on the internet but

> couldn't find the answer to this question - it

> doesn't appear to be on the link you've posted

> either - unless it's staring me in the face & I'm

> just missing it somehow.

Fair enough I can see why you didn't check the ticket there and then under those circumstances.

What I mean is, if you put yourself in the position of a Judge/Jury, you'd ask why you'd seemingly ignored the ?100 and just paid the ?60?

The Police website seems to agree with this https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q530.htm

Give them a ring and see if they'll back down over the phone, otherwise I would write it off as an expensive mistake. The alternative is to go to court and risk a fine of up to ?1k.

[sillywoman]

There's no initial or date - tough further down the ticket the date is written and the he's signed it.

Sigh (that one's for you Otta ;) ), I think it's pay up with a heavy heart isn't it? I will call them, but I think I know what they'll say - if you don't like it challenge it, and as someone else says that could mean a mahoosive fine in the end. An expensive little bit of rebellion (the paying of the ?60 rather than ?100, not the forgetting the MOT had run out). Ah well, Bigbrother 1 - small (wo)man 0. Buggers.

[theron2]

.

[Otta]

No need to be rude.

As EP says, pay it, theb challenge it and see if you can get some back.

[ianr]

You were given 28 days to say that you wished to contest the legality of the notice, potentially before a court, but you chose not to. I don't think you can do so now. I don't in any case see anything in s.52 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (part III) that might have helped you. You might conceivably have had an argument if the constable had not altered the amount. As it is, there was no ?60 FP in October 2013. They had all been raised to ?100 on 16 August 2013 (see SI 2013/2025).

The ?150 fine is presumably one now registered with the court as a fine levied against an FPN defaulter. (same Act, ss.55(3),70,71). If you default on that they can do whatever courts are allowed to do with fine defaulters.

Was your ?60 cheque cleared? If so, are you now being asked to pay more than the ?90 balance? If that's the case it may be that the court penalty clerk's office is also at fault and could be asked to correct that. You might at the same time, or anyway, want to mention your own error in apparently believing that the constable's endorsement was of no effect, and ask whether they were aware of the fact of the clerical amendment to the "?60" as printed.

[LadyNorwood]

theron2 has a very valid point though - no MOT = no insurance, lucky not to be prosecuted...

[unlurked]

Can the police do this? Lol. They can (and do) anything they want. Pay up before they send the debt collectors round.

[sillywoman]

Yes, I was lucky not to be prosecuted or have an accident. I cocked up, am not a habitual MOT avoider by any means (thought it ran out end of Oct, actually it was end of Sept). I know, I know, I hold up my hands to all of that and assure you I feel appropriately embarrassed and ashamed of my mistake. I will just have to pay up and not feed the children over Christmas thereby adding 'bad mother' to my list of misdemeanours. It's a slippery slope . . .

[ianr]

The intended change in charges was announced on 5 June 2013. Are London police still using outdated forms and amending them manually? Has this been a common practice? Is there any knowledge of guidance they've been given on making the amendments, or on explaining them at the time to recipients?

Are the court fixed penalty clerks aware of the manual amendments to the forms? Do they receive copies of the notices as amended?

How did the penalty clerk's office respond to the receipt of the ?60 cheque?

[Lowlander]

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The intended change in charges was announced on 5

> June 2013. Are London police still using outdated

> forms and amending them manually? Has this been a

> common practice? Is there any knowledge of

> guidance they've been given on making the

> amendments, or on explaining them at the time to

> recipients?

>

> Are the court fixed penalty clerks aware of the

> manual amendments to the forms? Do they receive

> copies of the notices as amended?

>

> How did the penalty clerk's office respond to the

> receipt of the ?60 cheque?

On the first point it's common for out of date forms to be issued and endorsed as applicable, this is better than wasting taxpayer's money throwing old forms away and printing new ones every time a detail needs to be changed. As long as the endorsement is clear legal precedent suggests this is acceptable.

The other two points are valid, although this is a criminal fine where sillywoman has accepted a fixed penalty as an option to being prosecuted in court, so unlike a parking ticket which is a civil offence.

If you don't agree with the fine it there is no official appeal process other than court...which is a risky strategy!

The unanswered question is why she didn't query the amount when paying in the first place, a ?90 bet with short odds.

[sillywoman]

Lowlander - it's not unanswered. I've answered that question further up-thread.

Ianr - the clerks office cashed my cheque then waited 6 weeks and issued me with a ?150 fine for non-payment notice. As I said - buggers. If they'd just said no, that's not enough, I could've resolved it there and then and paid the full amount, but to get a fine 6 weeks after cashing my cheque without any indication that this wasn't acceptable seems just mean to me. But then it would - wouldn't it?

[Lowlander]

Ouch. I would give them a call and explain your situation (and that's it's Christmas, kids's presents etc.), you may get somewhere.

Otherwise, for the amount involved, you have to ask whether it's worth your time trying to recover ?50, and put it down to experience...

[Parkdrive]

LadyNorwood Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> theron2 has a very valid point though - no MOT =

> no insurance, lucky not to be prosecuted...

I also understood they have the power to impound your vehicle and have it destroyed if the insurance has been invalidtaed, or (effectively) driving uninsured.