Not guilty?, Now cough up... - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Not guilty?, Now cough up...

£0.00 @
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=20842 Basically if you challenge a ticket, even if your found innocent, you will have to pay court costs. Once again the government is trying … Read More
phil-smith.tk Avatar
7y, 8m agoPosted 7 years, 8 months ago
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=20842

Basically if you challenge a ticket, even if your found innocent, you will have to pay court costs.

Once again the government is trying to screw us good and proper.


-------------------
Appologies if this breaks any rules... but I thought it would be important!
phil-smith.tk Avatar
7y, 8m agoPosted 7 years, 8 months ago
Options

All Comments

(28) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
#2
well otherwise who is paying the court fees? The government? Which then in turn is us tax payers anyways?

So tbh im slightly more in favour of the individual being charged with the court fees...
#3
Typical, screwed over again by a governement be it this one or any others, they are all the same.
#4
awoodhall2003
well otherwise who is paying the court fees? The government? Which then in turn is us tax payers anyways?

So tbh im slightly more in favour of the individual being charged with the court fees...


It's not exactly fair though?
Someone clones your plates... you get a speeding fine... you either pay £60, have 3 points and higher insurance costs (or a ban if you have 9 points already or 3 and your in your first 2 years on the road) or pay £100s in court costs...

You should be able to contest this in court without having to pay to prove your innocent :-(

If you were innocent your treated as guilty win or lose :x
#5
phil-smith.tk;6638495
It's not exactly fair though?
Someone clones your plates... you get a speeding fine... you either pay £60, have 3 points and higher insurance costs (or a ban if you have 9 points already or 3 and your in your first 2 years on the road) or pay £100s in court costs...

You should be able to contest this in court without having to pay to prove your innocent :-(

If you were innocent your treated as guilty win or lose :x


Well not really as if you contest it and get found innocent then you dont have points on your license nor does anything get put on your record for insurance reasons.
I agree the fairness of certain aspects can seem unfair and are, but problem is what about the rest of us tax payers paying for you contesting that ticket? Especially as a lot of tickets are contested and upheld...i bet the percentage that are dismissed is greatly outweighed by the percentage that are upheld. Therefore, i believe the rationale can arise from that.

Thus not disputing some injustice and detriment to a few people, but then i believe maybe if the ticket is dismissed then you should not have to pay the court fees, but if it is upheld then you should have to.
Remembering there is still time for amendments i'd imagine and furthermore if too much injustice seems to be created then im sure it will get amended.
1 Like #6
awoodhall2003
well otherwise who is paying the court fees? The government? Which then in turn is us tax payers anyways?

So tbh im slightly more in favour of the individual being charged with the court fees...


That's absurd. How can it be fair to be still penalised even if you're not guilty? (unless the innocent party was represented by Nick Freeman)
#7
awoodhall2003
Well not really as if you contest it and get found innocent then you dont have points on your license nor does anything get put on your record for insurance reasons.
I agree the fairness of certain aspects can seem unfair and are, but problem is what about the rest of us tax payers paying for you contesting that ticket? Especially as a lot of tickets are contested and upheld...i bet the percentage that are dismissed is greatly outweighed by the percentage that are upheld. Therefore, i believe the rationale can arise from that.

Thus not disputing some injustice and detriment to a few people, [COLOR="Red"]but then i believe maybe if the ticket is dismissed then you should not have to pay the court fees[/COLOR], but if it is upheld then you should have to.
Remembering there is still time for amendments i'd imagine and furthermore if too much injustice seems to be created then im sure it will get amended.


Make your mind up!
#8
deek72;6638790
That's absurd. How can it be fair to be still penalised even if you're not guilty?

please dont misquote me then it will make sense...:thumbsup:

Thus why i have explained a bit further.
banned#9
awoodhall2003
well otherwise who is paying the court fees? The government? Which then in turn is us tax payers anyways?

So tbh im slightly more in favour of the individual being charged with the court fees...


Bill the richard who incorrectly issued the ticket.
#10
deek72;6638815
Make your mind up!

ummm again please read my posts...the words in bold:
So tbh im slightly more in favour of the individual being charged with the court fees...
but then i believe maybe if the ticket is dismissed then you should not have to pay the court fees
#11
guv;6638819
Bill the richard who incorrectly issued the ticket.

ill go with that...but would mean that the police though would need to be personally liable, which is not going to happen.
#12
awoodhall2003
please dont misquote me then it will make sense...:thumbsup:

Thus why i have explained a bit further.


I didn't quote you at all. What are you talking about?

I will now though:
1. So tbh im slightly more in favour of the individual being charged with the court fees...
2. but then i believe maybe if the ticket is dismissed then you should not have to pay the court fees

So which is it?
banned#13
awoodhall2003
ill go with that...but would mean that the police though would need to be personally liable, which is not going to happen.


Or traffic wardens...

Sounds pucker to me.
#14
deek72;6638861
I didn't quote you at all. What are you talking about?

I will now though:
1. So tbh im slightly more in favour of the individual being charged with the court fees...
2. but then i believe maybe if the ticket is dismissed then you should not have to pay the court fees

So which is it?

um...you quoted me twice...unless im blind.

Well its both: I am slightly more in favour of the individual being charged with the court fees, however i do also believe there should be a relief for court fees for those whom their tickets are dismissed.

So let me consolidate:
Personally I am in favour of the individual being charged for court fees for contesting a ticket, and if that ticket is then dismissed then there should be a relief system for those individuals so that they suffer no detriment for their own innocence.

Apologies if my wording was not great...ive been up since 530am and had 12hours of university (9am till 9pm) so starting to dip now! :thumbsup:
#15
guv;6638862
Or traffic wardens...

Sounds pucker to me.

yeah i was trying to think what those idiots were called but i was just thinking of another words (much harsher).

Make any traffic related offence workers self employed and liable for their own person...so if they provide a ticket that was not valid they have to pay for it, or at least a fine. However, they should still need a safeguard such as if someone has cloned plates or something that obviously wouldnt be their fault.
banned#16
awoodhall2003
yeah i was trying to think what those idiots were called but i was just thinking of another words (much harsher).

Make any traffic related offence workers self employed and liable for their own person...so if they provide a ticket that was not valid they have to pay for it, or at least a fine. However, they should still need a safeguard such as if someone has cloned plates or something that obviously wouldnt be their fault.


Why would it not be their fault?

Can't see why the proper owner should pay any court costs for a traffic warden incorrectly issuing a ticket to someone fraudulently using number plates they own.
#17
You're right, your wording wasn't very good at all. You should go to bed. But before you do, just here this - you originally appeared to agree with the principle on an innocent person still having to pay costs, hinting that it's better than 'us taxpayers' having to pay it ( Incidentally, when did students start paying income tax?)
You then go on to say, and I quote:[COLOR="Red"]Personally I am in favour of the individual being charged for court fees for contesting a ticket, and if that ticket is then dismissed then there should be a relief system for those individuals so that they suffer no detriment for their own innocence.[/COLOR]
WHICH IS EXACTLY THE WAY IT WORKS NOW!
So don't try and be clever and twist it to make it look like I was talking out of my backside when in reality it was your rambling (university? Scary!) post that caused any confusion.
#18
guv;6638929
Why would it not be their fault?

Can't see why the proper owner should pay any court costs for a traffic warden incorrectly issuing a ticket to someone fraudulently using number plates they own.

well suppose depends if they bother to check the vehicle whether that number plate belongs to that car via model, make, colour etc. However, do traffic wardens for example have access to that information? I would not imagine so and therefore would not be their fault personally. However, obviously if they were to do a check like that then fine they should be held responsible.

deek72;6638937
You're right, your wording wasn't very good at all. You should go to bed. But before you do, just here this - you originally appeared to agree with the principle on an innocent person still having to pay costs, hinting that it's better than 'us taxpayers' having to pay it ( Incidentally, when did students start paying income tax?)
You then go on to say, and I quote:[COLOR=Red]Personally I am in favour of the individual being charged for court fees for contesting a ticket, and if that ticket is then dismissed then there should be a relief system for those individuals so that they suffer no detriment for their own innocence.[/COLOR]
WHICH IS EXACTLY THE WAY IT WORKS NOW!
So don't try and be clever and twist it to make it look like I was talking out of my backside when in reality it was your rambling (university? Scary!) post that caused any confusion.

yeah but i said im SLIGHTLY more towards, and not 100% agreed, and my reasons were the innocent tickets issued, but a lot of contested tickets im sure are upheld and thus should pay court fees.

Well i was not aware the way the system works due to never receiving a ticket luckily and thus never needing to look in to it.

EDIT: Income tax: anything over £6,475 that i earn i pay income tax on, same as you workers...considering i have worked in my life for several companies i have paid income tax i can assure you!
#19
awoodhall2003
um...you quoted me twice...unless im blind.

Well its both: I am slightly more in favour of the individual being charged with the court fees, however i do also believe there should be a relief for court fees for those whom their tickets are dismissed.

So let me consolidate:
Personally I am in favour of the individual being charged for court fees for contesting a ticket, and if that ticket is then dismissed then there should be a relief system for those individuals so that they suffer no detriment for their own innocence.

Apologies if my wording was not great...ive been up since 530am and had 12hours of university (9am till 9pm) so starting to dip now! :thumbsup:


This makes no sense, you can't be in favour of people paying court fees but also believe people shouldn't have to pay them if found not guilty ('ticket dismissed')

As it stands if your case is dismissed at court, you can claim costs back for preparation time and travel expenses, even in a simple case the latter can be hefty as the case will be held in the court local to the offence, not local to the defendent. If you are convicted however you pay for all of the court costs, plus your fine and the victim support fee. In extreme cases this can mean an offence which could have been finished with a fixed penalty of just sixty pounds and three points have spiralled into a bill of over 30,000 pounds that the losing defendent has to pay (this is a current ongoing case challenging the technicality of using a gatso on a corner)

What is being proposed is that even if you are found innocent, you'll still pay a large proportion of the legal bill even if you were entirely innocent which is clearly not very fair although currently in Scotland there are no costs awarded to either side regardless of the outcome.

What the government should be doing if it wants to cut costs is to make the CPS more careful about cases they're taking up, in many cases the police/SCP's just dump cases straight over to the CPS if the driver has not accepted the CoFP or submitted a suitable response to a S172 request. This is despite clear cases of obvious problems in the case that mean the it's going to get thrown out in court.

John
#20
Johnmcl7;6639016
This makes no sense, you can't be in favour of people paying court fees but also believe people shouldn't have to pay them if found not guilty ('ticket dismissed')

As it stands if your case is dismissed at court, you can claim costs back for preparation time and travel expenses, even in a simple case the latter can be hefty as the case will be held in the court local to the offence, not local to the defendent. If you are convicted however you pay for all of the court costs, plus your fine and the victim support fee. In extreme cases this can mean an offence which could have been finished with a fixed penalty of just sixty pounds and three points have spiralled into a bill of over 30,000 pounds that the losing defendent has to pay (this is a current ongoing case challenging the technicality of using a gatso on a corner)

What is being proposed is that even if you are found innocent, you'll still pay a large proportion of the legal bill even if you were entirely innocent which is clearly not very fair although currently in Scotland there are no costs awarded to either side regardless of the outcome.

What the government should be doing if it wants to cut costs is to make the CPS more careful about cases they're taking up, in many cases the police/SC's just dump cases straight over to the CPS if the driver has not accepted the CoFP or submitted a suitable response to a S172 request. This is despite clear cases of obvious problems in the case that mean the it's going to get thrown out in court.

John


i fail to see how it makes no sense so im basically saying:
ticket upheld = pay court fees
ticket dismissed = not pay court fees

by the sounds of it that is a simple model of how it already though and therefore not apply any remedy to the current 'problems' the government are facing.

So surely what i said i was in favour of does make sense as its fundamentally the same as the current system...or does the current system not make sense either?

Apologies again for not being aware of how the current system worked before now, and thus might have seemed confusing with my initial comments which were rather fragmented.
1 Like #21
You know fine well why your comments are contradictory, your first few comments in this thread are in favour of the new change as you don't want taxpayers to cover the bill but you're having to do a quick u-turn now because you've realised you've no idea how the system works in the first place. Why you try and debate this with people when you've no idea how the system works I've no idea.

John
#22
Johnmcl7
You know fine well why your comments are contradictory, your first few comments in this thread are in favour of the new change as you don't want taxpayers to cover the bill but you're having to do a quick u-turn now because you've realised you've no idea how the system works in the first place. Why you try and debate this with people when you've no idea how the system works I've no idea.

John


Thanks :thumbsup:

awoodhall2003

So surely what i said i was in favour of does make sense as its fundamentally the same as the current system...or does the current system not make sense either?


The words 'straws' and 'clutching' spring to mind here!
#23
Johnmcl7;6639082
You know fine well why your comments are contradictory, your first few comments in this thread are in favour of the new change as you don't want taxpayers to cover the bill but you're having to do a quick u-turn now because you've realised you've no idea how the system works in the first place. Why you try and debate this with people when you've no idea how the system works I've no idea.

John


well if its topical at the moment no problem with trying to show some interest is there? No? Didnt believe so...
They are not contradictory as they are not definite articles, if they were and i didnt have words like slightly and maybe in there then of course they would be.

I didnt do any U-turn, furthermore i never made out i knew anything in regards to the current system...

deek72;6639106
Thanks :thumbsup:



The words 'straws' and 'clutching' spring to mind here!

yeah admittedly, and already admitted due to my lack of knowledge of the current system that is in place!
#24
awoodhall2003
well if its topical at the moment no problem with trying to show some interest is there? No? Didnt believe so...
They are not contradictory as they are not definite articles, if they were and i didnt have words like slightly and maybe in there then of course they would be.

I didnt do any U-turn, furthermore i never made out i knew anything in regards to the current system...


yeah admittedly, and already admitted due to my lack of knowledge of the current system that is in place!


Let's put it to bed, eh? :thumbsup:
#25
awoodhall2003
well if its topical at the moment no problem with trying to show some interest is there? No? Didnt believe so...

You weren't showing interest, you were arguing a point despite the fact you didn't know what you were actually talking about - that's very different to 'trying to show interest'


They are not contradictory as they are not definite articles, if they were and i didnt have words like slightly and maybe in there then of course they would be.

Nonsense, trying to argue semantics just makes your comments look all the worse. You either agree that court costs should be covered by either side regardless of outcome or you believe in the current system, you can't 'slightly' believe in one.


I didnt do any U-turn, furthermore i never made out i knew anything in regards to the current system...


Yes you have as your inital posts show, by arguing with someone who did know the current system it implies you have some knowledge of what you're trying to argue rather than querying what the actual change means in reality. It makes the thread even more confusing for those who similarly have no knowledge of the system.

John
#26
deek72;6639149
Let's put it to bed, eh? :thumbsup:

think thats probably best...and let actual discussion on the link/news!
Surprised others havent posted tbh as there seems to be a good few people in the last few months who have posted in regards to receiving tickets and wanting to contest it.
#27
Johnmcl7;6639163
You weren't showing interest, you were arguing a point despite the fact you didn't know what you were actually talking about - that's very different to 'trying to show interest'



Nonsense, trying to argue semantics just makes your comments look all the worse. You either agree that court costs should be covered by either side regardless of outcome or you believe in the current system, you can't 'slightly' believe in one.



Yes you have as your inital posts show, by arguing with someone who did know the current system it implies you have some knowledge of what you're trying to argue rather than querying what the actual change means in reality. It makes the thread even more confusing for those who similarly have no knowledge of the system.

John

Whatever...as reading through some of your more recent posts you are another BG1/JFK character...but make an active effort to entice arguments and clash with people.

All the best. :thumbsup:
#28
I've created a debate... :roll:

It's a debatable subject... I still think it's wrong though! :thumbsup:

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!