Vincent Grant fights back - and wins - over out of time NIP

On 23rd October last I received an unpleasant missive from Dorset Policeregarding an allegation that my car had been recorded doing 61mph in a50mph limit on 9th August, some 75 days AFTER the offence.

I replied as follows:

"Your own advice is clear that a ' A Notice of Intended Prosecution must besent to the last known address of the Registered Keeper within 14 days ofthe detection of the alleged offence.

Having received such notice (copy attached) 75 days after the allegedoffence (and 11 weeks is a long time to remember who may have beendriving), I intend to take no further action.

Please confirm the cancellation of this Intended Prosecution in writing tome as soon as possible.

"I received the following reply on 12th November from Miss J Rogers,Supervisor, Central Ticket Office:

"I write with reference to your letter dated 24 October 2004.

We are legally obliged to send the Notice to the Registered Keeperaccording to DVLA's records.

I can confirm that DVLA's records show a Mr. Conroy James as the RegisteredKeeper of Vehicle Registration Mark VG3472.

A Notice was sent but returned stating he had no knowledge of the vehicle.

We then contacted DVLA who provided us with the correct name and address.

I can therefore confirm that the Notice is valid and I would suggest you contact the DVLA regarding the error on their system so that your detailsare present.

Please complete the enclosed notice within seven days.

"This had taken up most of the 28 days during which a straight £60 fine and3 points can be applied. I telephoned Miss Rogers who confirmed again their position.

I therefore sent off my licence and £60, writing a disclaimer on the backof their form regarding my intention to contact the DVLA and confirm this mess.

I wrote thus:"Re: VG3472 I am informed by Dorset Police that the details for this vehicle of mine,which I have owned for more than four years and this registration, which Ihave owned for more than fifteen years, does not contain my name andaddress * on your database, although somehow, even though it doesn't, ordidn't, they still eventually got my details from you.

Do you have two names and addresses for each vehicle or can't they use yourdatabase properly, or what precisely?

They suggested I write to you to find out the facts of this matter. Thestory as given so far seems rather fabulous and I need the exact facts asthey could become part of legal arguments.

* Rather the details of a Conroy James in Surrey somewhere.

Please inform me as soon as possible what has been going on from your pointof view, if anything.

"The DVLA efficiently replied by return of post:

"Vehicle Registration Mark VG3472

Thank you for your recent letter enquiry regarding the above vehicleregistration mark.

I have checked this record and can confirm the present details recorded on our data:

You are the first and only registered keeper You acquired the vehicle on18.04.2000 A V5 Registration Document was issued 02.05.2000 The car istaxed until 01.04.2005

If you require any further information regarding this vehicle please do nothesitate to contact us.

"I did phone Miss Howells who wrote the above and further confirmed thefacts as laid out.

I then wrote back to Dorset Police:

"Following my recent correspondence with yourselves and the DVLA, it is nowconfirmed (I knew it all along) that I have been the registered owner ofthe vehicle since April 2000 and that your previous response was notaccurate. Appropriate correspondence is attached.

Due to the delay in your original reply, happily not repeated by theefficient DVLA, I was obliged to pay the speeding fine even though I couldnot be sure who was driving so long ago. I reserved my position, however onthe reverse of your form.

My original letter remains correct. The procedure has been invalid from thestart. Please arrange to cancel the fine and the points on my otherwise clean licence.

I look forward to your early response. I simply cannot be held responsiblefor errors in your own administration.

"I received the following response, this time from The Manager of the DorsetCentral Ticket Office: (this time only 14 days elapsed before the reply)

"With reference to the above Fixed Penalty Notice and your recent letter, Ican advise that I have investigated this matter and have decided that noclerical errors were made in the administration of this offence andconsequently the penalty should stand.

Registered Keeper details are provided by a DVLA database to which we haveaccess, and are retrieved by an automatic process.

I accept that when your vehicle registration mark was entered, your detailswere not initially provided, however we must act on information given whichin this case stated Mr. Conroy James as the Registered Keeper.

It is not the intention of the Central Ticket Office to cause unnecessaryinconvenience, however, please accept my apologies if this was the case.

"By now it was near the end of the year and I waited for the new Freedom ofInformation Act' to try a new tack.

I wrote back in early January:

"What may be 'unnecessary inconvenience' from your perspective isincompetence and injustice' from my perspective.

I still lack a credible explanation from you regarding the differentresults obtained by yourselves and the DVLA when accessing, as you admit,the same database.

When the same database is accessed by two different sets of people, one inDorset and the other in Wales, it is only because of an error by one ofthose that inappropriate results are returned. As I have been the owner ofthat registration for some 15 years, I know where my money goes.

If what you say is true, then were you to look into the database againtoday, you will still get Mr. Conroy as the Registered Keeper. I guess ifsome dreadful accident were to occur, the 'Widow' Conroy would be in earlyreceipt of Police commiserations.

If this is the case, then I require an IT expert of yours (I am one,myself) to explain to me how such a discrepancy can continue to occur.

If, on the other hand, the database does now show me as the RegisteredKeeper, then, either: There has been some amendment to it by the DVLA,which we will be able to trace, or The original look up by your staffcontained a procedural error.

need to know which of these is the case and under the new freedoms toreceive this information, I expect to be informed. Without adequateexplanation I cannot accept the status quo and the matter will go all theway to court if necessary, where facts can be gleaned under oath.

I received a reply from the Freedom of Information Manager which promisedme a formal reply by February 4.

I received the following today, January 24:

"Further to my letter of 19 January 2005, I would like to inform you that Ihave completed investigation into the circumstances regarding the issue ofTicket C1675842.

Investigations indicate that a clerical error had occurred which resultedin the failure to notify you, the Registered Keeper of VG3472, within therequired 14 day period from the date of the offence occurring. Procedureshave been amended accordingly and staff training implemented to ensure thatpotential offences concerning Cherished Registration Plates are processedcorrectly. I also took this opportunity to initiate a systems check toensure data transfer from DVLA was being received correctly and I am happyto report that all was in order.

In this instance, due to the findings of my investigation, I am instructedto remove the relative 3 points from your licence and refund the 60.00fixed penalty you have already paid. I have enclosed a pre-paid envelope toenable you to send your licence to this office and offer our sincereapologies on behalf of the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership for this error occurring."