Legal advice needed! Speeding in a converted N1

[GHind]

Hi all and I apologise in advance as I know this has been discussed at great lengths already but I’m a bit stumped. I’ve received a dreaded nip (62 in a 60) I own a T5 sports line kombi windows and rear seats from factory unladen weight under 2040. North wales police insist that as my V5 says LGV panel van N1 its lower speed limits. I’ve sent them a shed load of info I’ve picked up from here that despite the V5 my van is duel purpose and not a goods vehicle. They give me the generic email response of you have to go to court to prove mitigation. Am I missing something? Am I going to get 3 pts and a big fine if I go to court or is everyone on here correct and the V5 doesn’t matter provided the kombi meets DPV requirements.
Thanks for any advice. Feeling a tad hard done by
Gar

 

[Sasquatch]

The construction and use definition of a motorcaravan as given in those 1979 Type Approval Regulations – a motor vehicle which is constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers and their effects and which contains, as permanently installed equipment, the facilities which are reasonably necessary for enabling the vehicle to provide mobile living accommodation for its users.. Period, as the Americans would say.

Furthermore, Under Schedule 6 of the R.T.A. it is stated that the National Speed Limit applies to a passenger vehicle, a motorcaravan or a dual purpose vehicle not drawing a trailer. There is no reasonable argument that your van doesn't meet at least one or these descriptions, or indeed all three.

TaffPlod are referring to the N1 class, which a taxation and licencing class (an international classification that permits such vehicles to be driven by those with a regular drivers licence.) It's the Road Traffic Act and Con and Use 1979 that determine speed limits, not the taxation class.

I'd quote the con and use definition at them and see what they say, and personally would have my day in court. It's a risk of course, but at face value the con and use regs are what they are and there's little room to interpret them otherwise. I think it's a fair bet the case would get dropped prior to court when the CPS prosecutor sees you defence.

 

[roadtripper]

Frustratingly this is still rather open to opinion

 

[GHind]

That’s great info Sasquatch and pretty much what I’m thinking, wife says just do the driver awareness course but after everything I’ve read I can’t see how my vehicle could differ from anyone else who’s prosecution was dropped. It’s as if NWP just hope people pay the cash to do the course rather than risk court. I haven’t had much of a useful response from DVLA with regards to my V5 and speed limits but I’ve seen a letter on here where DVLA state body type shouldn’t be used to determine speed limits.

 

[Sasquatch]

The problem is here these cases are heard in Magistrates courts. Case law is not set by a mere magistrate, so one court could find you not guilty and another court could a week later find you guilty of the same offence in identical circumstances.

Therefore, each individual case here is on its own merits and what has gone before is irrelevant. It's up to each defendent to state their case.

Thinking about I would let it get to court and keep my powder dry, not reveal my defence until I am in court. This negates any opportunity for the prosecutor, who is poorly paid and massively overworked, to come up with a counter argument in advance. It's a risk, but if you're going to be getting points by waymof an FPN anyway there's little to lose. Provided the defence is prefented sensibly and clearly you're unlikely to get spanked too hard for the fine even if you lose. It's only when chancers extract the urine that the mags tend to ratchet up the pain.

It's your call my friend, but id be inclined to stand my ground. It's worth pointing out to them that some other forces, most recently Avon and Somerset, accept the argument above and that's fairly well documented on the Web. Be sure to point that out to the mags if TaffPlod still won't have it. It's a risk, but I reckon the odds are at least 2:1 in your favour and id have my day in court, and then embarrass them in the local media when they lose (which might make them leave us alone in future.)

Either way, best of luck.

 

[GHind]

Frustratingly this is still rather open to opinion

Brilliant thanks, think I’m in a slightly different position as I’m saying my kombi is a DPV carry’s passengers not goods. Think the motorhome is a similar debate though!

 

[Sasquatch]

Ah, with you. Indeed, same argument applies under schedule 6 R.T.A. anyway.

When this is all over you need a small black rat sticker next to the number plate

 

[GHind]

The problem is here these cases are heard in Magistrates courts. Case law is not set by a mere magistrate, so one court could find you not guilty and another court could a week later find you guilty of the same offence in identical circumstances.

Therefore, each individual case here is on its own merits and what has gone before is irrelevant. It's up to each defendent to state their case.

Thinking about I would let it get to court and keep my powder dry, not reveal my defence until I am in court. This negates any opportunity for the prosecutor, who is poorly paid and massively overworked, to come up with a counter argument in advance. It's a risk, but if you're going to be getting points by waymof an FPN anyway there's little to lose. Provided the defence is prefented sensibly and clearly you're unlikely to get spanked too hard for the fine even if you lose. It's only when chancers extract the urine that the mags tend to ratchet up the pain.

It's your call my friend, but id be inclined to stand my ground. It's worth pointing out to them that some other forces, most recently Avon and Somerset, accept the argument above and that's fairly well documented on the Web. Be sure to point that out to the mags if TaffPlod still won't have it. It's a risk, but I reckon the odds are at least 2:1 in your favour and id have my day in court, and then embarrass them in the local media when they lose (which might make them leave us alone in future.)

Either way, best of luck.

Thanks and I agree if evidence is presented in court of similar cases where the police have realised the kombis are DPVs and dropped the charge I can’t see how I’d be treated differently. It’s not like a drivers awareness course will solve the situation it’ll just line someone’s pocket! All very frustrating and needless

 

[Dellmassive]

Frustratingly this is still rather open to opinion

Top Banana the BBB.

 

[GHind]

The problem is here these cases are heard in Magistrates courts. Case law is not set by a mere magistrate, so one court could find you not guilty and another court could a week later find you guilty of the same offence in identical circumstances.

Therefore, each individual case here is on its own merits and what has gone before is irrelevant. It's up to each defendent to state their case.

Thinking about I would let it get to court and keep my powder dry, not reveal my defence until I am in court. This negates any opportunity for the prosecutor, who is poorly paid and massively overworked, to come up with a counter argument in advance. It's a risk, but if you're going to be getting points by waymof an FPN anyway there's little to lose. Provided the defence is prefented sensibly and clearly you're unlikely to get spanked too hard for the fine even if you lose. It's only when chancers extract the urine that the mags tend to ratchet up the pain.

It's your call my friend, but id be inclined to stand my ground. It's worth pointing out to them that some other forces, most recently Avon and Somerset, accept the argument above and that's fairly well documented on the Web. Be sure to point that out to the mags if TaffPlod still won't have it. It's a risk, but I reckon the odds are at least 2:1 in your favour and id have my day in court, and then embarrass them in the local media when they lose (which might make them leave us alone in future.)

Either

 

[ChrisBell]

I did the speed awareness course. I am now far more mindful of my speed and the required speed for the class of my vehicle. Been there done it got the t-shirt. As frustrating as it is no matter how much evidence or counter arguement I produced was not good enough for Northern Ireland Speed Awareness Vans

 

[Sackmycook]

Thinking about I would let it get to court and keep my powder dry, not reveal my defence until I am in court. This negates any opportunity for the prosecutor...

From experience, the problem with this is that, if acquitted or discontinued by the Criminal Protection Service at Court , the Beaks may take a very dim view to your application for costs on the basis that, had you disclosed your defence earlier, the case may have been discontinued earlier. Court time is precious and Magistrates are very protective of it....

 

[JOG]

The construction and use definition of a motorcaravan as given in those 1979 Type Approval Regulations – a motor vehicle which is constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers and their effects and which contains, as permanently installed equipment, the facilities which are reasonably necessary for enabling the vehicle to provide mobile living accommodation for its users.. Period, as the Americans would say.

Furthermore, Under Schedule 6 of the R.T.A. it is stated that the National Speed Limit applies to a passenger vehicle, a motorcaravan or a dual purpose vehicle not drawing a trailer. There is no reasonable argument that your van doesn't meet at least one or these descriptions, or indeed all three.

TaffPlod are referring to the N1 class, which a taxation and licencing class (an international classification that permits such vehicles to be driven by those with a regular drivers licence.) It's the Road Traffic Act and Con and Use 1979 that determine speed limits, not the taxation class.

I'd quote the con and use definition at them and see what they say, and personally would have my day in court. It's a risk of course, but at face value the con and use regs are what they are and there's little room to interpret them otherwise. I think it's a fair bet the case would get dropped prior to court when the CPS prosecutor sees you defence.

I agree. If you do the Speed Awareness course, you’ll still pay £100 for the privilege and have to declare it to your insurer for 5 years! They treat the course exactly as if you’d been given 3 points and load your insurance anyway.

You’d be better off using a solicitor who is well-versed in traffic matters and taking your chance at the magistrates court.

 

[ChrisBell]

I agree. If you do the Speed Awareness course, you’ll still pay £100 for the privilege and have to declare it to your insurer for 5 years! They treat the course exactly as if you’d been given 3 points and load your insurance anyway.

You’d be better off using a solicitor who is well-versed in traffic matters and taking your chance at the magistrates court.

Is that right @JOG I was sure mine was 2 years and did not have to declare etc....

 

[JOG]

Is that right @JOG I was sure mine was 2 years and did not have to declare etc....

I did the SA course a few years ago…..just as we were leaving, the course leader reminded us that we had to inform our insurance providers of our attendance. The five years element arises as the standard question from insurance companies is “In the last 5 years, have you ever….” That’s the gotcha!

 

[ChrisBell]

I did the SA course a few years ago…..just as we were leaving, the course leader reminded us that we had to inform our insurance providers of our attendance. The five years element arises as the standard question from insurance companies is “In the last 5 years, have you ever….” That’s the gotcha!

Coolio. Can do speed awareness course again after 3 years assuming not learnt lesson or unfortunate to get caught!

 

[JOG]

Coolio. Can do speed awareness course again after 3 years assuming not learnt lesson or unfortunate to get caught!

Yes, you can!

 

[roadtripper]

Is that right @JOG I was sure mine was 2 years and did not have to declare etc....

It depends when and which course you took. Some of the earlier more local courses didn't but the later national courses are different.

 

[Lubrown]

I’ve received a dreaded nip (62 in a 60) I own a T5 sports line kombi windows and rear seats from factory unladen weight under 2040. North wales police insist that as my V5 says LGV panel van N1 its lower speed limits.

Am I missing something?

If they are intending to prosecute because you were doing 2mph over the speed limit (which would seem harsh) is the V5 thing going to make any difference one way or another?
I get that commercial vehicles and Motor Caravans might have different allowances on certain road but the way I read what you wrote is that they have a problem with you being 2mph over the limit, not that you were doing 60 instead of 50 or whatever they thought was appropriate based on your V5 rather than the signed speed limit?

 

[Sasquatch]

From experience, the problem with this is that, if acquitted or discontinued by the Criminal Protection Service at Court , the Beaks may take a very dim view to your application for costs on the basis that, had you disclosed your defence earlier, the case may have been discontinued earlier. Court time is precious and Magistrates are very protective of it....

Was speaking for my own part there. I wouldn't claim costs for me, because I'm retired and live a mile from the court.

As for our hero, he can advise the court that on such and such date and time time informed Mr Xyz at TaffPlod prosecutions unit of his position and they still proceeded to court. Having disclosed his defence argument already he's on solid ground if he did decide to go for costs, but thats a big can of very uncertain fishing bait in its own right.

That being the case there's no need to risk undermining himself by mentioning it again and again and forewarning the prosecutor.

@Lubrown modern speedos are generally so accurate now that most forces will go for 2mph over the limit. The old 10%+2 was an ACPO guideline, not an HO one, and being a non binding piece of guidance wasn't universally adhered to anyway.