Speeding fine appeal win - how man saved £ 900 in court

[TrueBlueTerrier]

https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/ ... 900-court/

A CHEPSTOW man believes he has broken years of legal precedent after persuading the court they should not assume Royal Mail deliveries always arrive.

It has been nine months since David Standingford, 53, of Larkfield Grove, Chepstow, received a notice of intended prosecution after speeding on 30mph road.

“Then, from my perspective, nothing happened,” he said. And then on May 16, he received a single justice procedure notice alleging he “failed to comply” with a fixed penalty offer he never received.

Pleading guilty to the offence, he paid the “full whack” of a £1,095 fine – some £995 higher than the original penalty would have been.

Lawyers advised Mr Standingford he had “little chance” of overturning the "well-known" Royal Mail precedent, so he represented himself.

Appealing at Newport Crown Court on Friday, November 10, he noted: “The presumption that a letter, once sent via Royal Mail, will reach its destination appears to be implicit in the legal process.

“This may have once been a reasonable assumption, however recent public news articles show that this is not the case.

“If this presumption has not been tested in court before, then it is time to do so.”

The court allowed Mr Standingford’s appeal, reducing his driving licence endorsement from four points to three and rectifying the amount he had to pay to the original £100.

Just three days later, Ofcom closed an investigation into Royal Mail which found they had failed to meet their national performance targets for 2022/23.

“While no one tells you not to appeal, the indications are that you won’t win. If you get caught in this situation and think you can’t, you can,” Mr Standingford said.

He believes “Standingford’s Law” could save thousands of people from being punished with hefty fines for not complying with penalties they never received.

“Hopefully, this will change the process. It’s bonkers they are still sending paper. If they want to save time and costs – and hassle – just do it over email.

“By the time they send you the letter, they have already got your phone number and email address and they are choosing not to use it."

A Royal Mail spokesperson said: “We are committed to improving the quality of our service and ensuring mail is delivered consistently and reliably throughout the United Kingdom.”

The Ministry of Justice were approached for comment.

[enskied]

True, they may have your phone number or email. I however ignore unknown incoming calls and fail to open many, many emails, simply sending them to without being opened.

The problem here is Royal Mail and it's refusal to honour it's Universal Service Obligation. A legal requirement.

[SpacePhoenix]

Why aren't they at the very least using Signed For?

[enskied]

Why aren't they at the very least using Signed For?

This is going to sound sarcastic, it's not intended.
A first or second class letter should be sufficient and at it's destination.
The apathy of the regulator's, government and public is breathtaking.

[enskied]

Why aren't they at the very least using Signed For?

This is going to sound sarcastic, it's not intended.
A first or second class letter should be sufficient and at it's destination.
The apathy of the regulator's, government and public is breathtaking.

[SpacePhoenix]

Why aren't they at the very least using Signed For?

This is going to sound sarcastic, it's not intended.
A first or second class letter should be sufficient and at it's destination.
The apathy of the regulator's, government and public is breathtaking.

How then does the court prove that the person has received whatever they're being sent?

[enskied]

Why aren't they at the very least using Signed For?

This is going to sound sarcastic, it's not intended.
A first or second class letter should be sufficient and at it's destination.
The apathy of the regulator's, government and public is breathtaking.

How then does the court prove that the person has received whatever they're being sent?

It sent a FIRST CLASS letter due to be delivered the next day as guaranteed under the USO. Delivered in 24 hours.

[NWpostie]

Why aren't they at the very least using Signed For?

This is going to sound sarcastic, it's not intended.
A first or second class letter should be sufficient and at it's destination.
The apathy of the regulator's, government and public is breathtaking.

How then does the court prove that the person has received whatever they're being sent?

It sent a FIRST CLASS letter due to be delivered the next day as guaranteed under the USO. Delivered in 24 hours.

Except that's not happening, it's on public record so he's right to win his appeal.

[Sean06]

Why aren't they at the very least using Signed For?

This is going to sound sarcastic, it's not intended.
A first or second class letter should be sufficient and at it's destination.
The apathy of the regulator's, government and public is breathtaking.

How then does the court prove that the person has received whatever they're being sent?

It sent a FIRST CLASS letter due to be delivered the next day as guaranteed under the USO. Delivered in 24 hours.

Due to be delivered so nothing ever gets lost in the post.

[enskied]

Why aren't they at the very least using Signed For?

This is going to sound sarcastic, it's not intended.
A first or second class letter should be sufficient and at it's destination.
The apathy of the regulator's, government and public is breathtaking.

How then does the court prove that the person has received whatever they're being sent?

It sent a FIRST CLASS letter due to be delivered the next day as guaranteed under the USO. Delivered in 24 hours.

Due to be delivered so nothing ever gets lost in the post.

Not much at all. It now just sits in a frame for days on end.

[R5001]

You can also refuse a signed for, which is why it isn't recommended for legal stuff, as you're giving them a chance to prove they never read the letter.

If you pay attention on your delivery, you may find letters that look identical, to the same address, one signed, one not. That's people (Often debt collection companies) covering their arses as much as possible.

The bloke who won this has simply proven that the assumption of perfect delivery is gone. That used to be something we were proud of, to the level where sending a couple of copies with proof of postage would ignore any claims from the recipient that they didn't' get it.

Its sad.