Bye bye licence

[Ceri JC]

Ho hum. Well, I always said if I lost my licence it'd be "in one fell swoop", getting caught from hundreds of metres away on a clear road doing a ton. As opposed to "accumulating" speed camera points (I previously had a clean licence) with stupid blindly driving through cameras in 30s at 40 or whatever.

Got a letter in the post today, I was caught doing 102 in a 70. Naughty, naughty, fair enough. What made me chuckle is that it wasn't on my bike. This was in a hire car (Corsa SXI+ 1.4) I had for work and I was driving back from work. Middle of the afternoon, nothing on the road, great conditions. I vaugely remember seeing a camera van just round a sweeping bend, but I also remember slowing as soon as I saw it. I don't normally "cruise" at a ton, let alone higher, so I can't believe I was going quicker and they caught me (at 102) slowing from a higher speed. I know those things have a ridiculous range (even if it's extremely debatable whether they're accurate at those distances, or at all, it seems it's not open for discussion in court). I accept they may have caught me at the exact instant I came into view before I had a chance to slow down, but it still sounds a bit quick to me. I thought speedos read quite proud at those sort of speeds, what would it have been showing; 110, 115?! Naturally I'll ask to see the footage/pictures, I would have said I was doing nearer 90 (still bad, but no ban).

The section of road A449 and time/date ties in with my work, so I don't think this is cloning or someone at the hire car company trying to palm off the blame, etc.

I know the general rule is 100+ (or rather > posted limit + 30) = instant ban. However, I do have a (previously) completely clean bike and car licence and I sort of need my car for work.

Now, the position with work is tricky; For my current role I don't absolutely categorically need a car. However, the role I am in training for does definately need a licence. I do also sometimes require a car for work (it was on business after all that I got busted) so whilst I could still do useful work, it would affect the business. There is also the issue of getting into the office. Whilst I work at home a lot (don't think I'll mention that in court :!: ), I am contractually office based and need to go in. The journey I have to make to the office simply cannot be done on public transport (as in not possible; not "I'm a primadona and don't like the public"), so I cannot get in without the licence. I've heard of (and some of the guys in work have had this) people not actually getting banned, but just getting a licence with loads of points.

I've also just (today) started biking IAM and if I get 7 or more points on my licence, I can't do that. Is it worth mentioning in court that I have just started that and a ban/loads of points will stop me from persuing this (which theoritically, could cure me of my addiction to speed :wink: :D ). Or could it possibly work against me? Don't really see how as I'm only in training; I know if you have a full advanced licence and bring it up they can throw the book at you, the thinking being, "you should know better" and also that it's likely egotism on the part of the person concerned (I'm an advanced driver, so speed limits don't apply to me). Would they, through some twisted logic, see it as irrelevant? "Well Mr. Charlton, the speed on your motorcycle doesn't appear to be the problem..."

I had actually been planning to start car IAM as soon as I bought a car (been planning on taking a car allowance one I was trained in my new role in work and spending it on a car- may well take a company car now and let them insure me) and had finished the bike one. I've attended one of the local IAM car group meetings, but other than that, have no "proof" as such. Worth mentioning this?

Something else and this might sound like wriggling, but it's the truth. 99% of my driving was in a ratty old 106. It was really noisy (engine and wind) as soon as you hit 75, so consequently I went slower. Something I've found every time I've driven another car is that on the motorway I glance at my speedo and find I'm going faster than I thought, simply because the sense of speed is so much less. Sort of the opposite of ripping the fairing off a bike. Is it worth mentioning this in my defense (it is sincere/true), or will it look like I'm trying to just get out of it. Would it even count against me; "So Mr. Charlton, not only were you speeding, but in an unfamiliar car?!"

What can I expect, 28 days ban? How many points when I get my licence back? How much will it affect my insurance premiums (age 24)?

One last thing, am I right in thinking at this stage of the game there is no need to mention this to my insurer? Only once I actually have the points or ban/whatever?

Sorry for a long post, lots to cover/check. Thanks in advance for any advice/criticism. Ta. Right, I'm off out in my new hire car to enjoy freedom while it lasts... :wink:

[Ceri JC]

Oh, one more thing; What's the timeframe for them to do this/call you to court? The date of the letter is 17/03/06, but the actual "act" was dated 09/02/06. I take it camera vans are the ones that they're allowed to take 6 months over, rather than 14 days (cameras?)?

Also it says, "Camera Device" could that that mean a fixed camera? I don't recall any on that road/certainly no flashes on the day in question, hence my assumption it must be a van.

[jim@55]

sorry to hear this ,bad luck :( .ah well .have a look on pepipoo theres a section on fines/periods of disqualification and the bods on there know theyr stuff ,if therys any possible way out of this(no ban/points situation)theyll know.let me know how u get on as i was going to lose my licence ,but its all sorted and im still riding (with 6 points ) :( but as you say ,btr that than a ban :wink:

[Professor]

Sorry to hear of your misfortune, Ceri.

Don't know what you should expect. My only experience is getting
recently caught doing 68 in a temporary 50 zone on the M4 (around
junction 10). I didn't see the 50 sign, and I saw the camera too
late due to fog. I got 3 points which I reported to the insurance
company once the points actually appeared on my license. And, the
annoying thing is that, as you, I got caught in my cage. I wouldn't
mind going down as a hero biker but getting caught in my Hyundai
Accent really upset me.

I vaguely recall that there are people on the forum who got caught
doing just under a ton and got away with a fine and points
(jonboy?). Don't know whether a few extra mph is critical in these
cases.

It is weird that it has taken so long for the authorities to produce your
letter. In my case it arrived 6 days after the offence. Isn't there
some rule that they have to inform you of the offence within a
certain time?

[rigor]

First, get yourself over to http://www.pepipoo.com/ straight away. TONS of useful info over there. And from my (dodgy) memory the camera guys have a time limit to send you the letter, which you MAY be out of .... but I may be wrong, get over there and check it all out.

And on a positive note this 100mph = ban stuff is not 100% accurate. The courts still have discretion, as in my case. Caught at 101.2 in my car on the a3 (average speed over a measured distance) With 3 points already on my licence and a previous 28 day ban I was sure I was going to be off the road for a long spell. End result was 6 points and a 300 pound fine, which IMO had MUCH more affect on my driving speed than anything else would have (in the long term).

So there it is, find out where you stand. Ask advice at Pepipoo and be prepared to grovel in court, and best of luck.

P.S. On the insurance side, you don't need to mention it until convicted afaik.

[mac]

They have more time to do you if they have to find the driver ( ie company car or hire car - got done in my company car and it took 5 weeks to get to me ).

[jim@55]

yes ,they have to do things by the book .they (the police/scp/whoever) have to notify you /issue an nip within 14 days of the offence and send it too u by first class post..lots of technicalities here ,,get onto pepipoo as iv said loads of info and good advice ,

[svsk2]

You'll probably be summonsed to court due to the chance of getting a ban. IMO best bet is to take it on the chin (it only winds the magistrates up if you try to evade responsibility), emphasise the need for your licence for your job, apologise most sincerly and perhaps suggest that they should give you a higher fine/points rather than a ban. I would also suggest booking a road safety course, or bike safe course before any hearing, to learn the error of your ways. And wear a suit. :wink:

[22]

Have a look at this, http://www.whitedalton.co.uk/photo.php.
Mate of mine got done a few years back for doing a estimated speed of 117, his boss went to court with him & explained that if he lost his liscense he'd loose his job wich meant he'd also be homeless as he lived in a tied house, in the end he got a big fine and a bigger b*llocking.

[Patch]

Ceri here's a bit of advice for you. Do not admit to being the driver. Force them into doing you for section 172. The company response to their 172 notice is not enough to convict you of speeding.

If you refuse to name the driver the section 172 offence carries a 3 point penalty they can not ban you for section 172.

[jonboy]

Bad luck Ceri, hope all goes well, keep us updated. :(


.

[northwind]

Ooh, bad luck Ceri. I admire your attitude, I hope when I inevitably get my collar felt I take it so well.

I've also just (today) started biking IAM and if I get 7 or more points on my licence, I can't do that.

Is it just me, or is this utterly mental? Surely people who've got points on their license are more in need of advanced training than those without?

[SVeeedy Gonzales]

Get work to write a note explaining your need, your outstanding work record, importance, etc. - worked for a mate who double-flashed an unmarked car then undertook it at >100mph and flipped him the finger as he went past. Court said he should be banned but owing to the job, his regret at it, etc. they gave him 9 points and a few hundred quid fine.

[Gnan]

Ceri here's a bit of advice for you. Do not admit to being the driver. Force them into doing you for section 172. The company response to their 172 notice is not enough to convict you of speeding.

If you refuse to name the driver the section 172 offence carries a 3 point penalty they can not ban you for section 172.

someone correct me if i'm wrong but:

it isn't a NIP is it? it should be a summons for this offence. if it's a fixed penalty then you wont get banned? if you go the S172 route and deny it was you then if in court they produce a video clearly showing it was you then you can technical be done for Perjury / Perverting the Course of Justic

at higher speeds car speedos tends to becomes more accurate, so there's a chance you could have been pushing 100 and that's exactly what you were doing. it's 96 mph for a ban in a 70.

you will not/are unlikely to get mitigating circumstances due to the severity of the offence and i think you'll get a 28-56 day ban + a hefty fine. (that seems to be the going rate) - you're likely to get 6 points as well.

your insurance premium will take a beating, it's far more severe than any SP30 and especially given your age, and it will stay on your record for 11 years (i think) because it was a straight driving ban (someone will correct me if i'm wrong) and not a TT99 for totting up.

i think you need to start talking to your employer to make sure you don't lose your job over this - check your contract, a lot of places will sack you for a driving ban (as it is a criminal offence)

[mysteryjimbo]

Don't know what you should expect. My only experience is getting
recently caught doing 68 in a temporary 50 zone on the M4 (around
junction 10).

Surely not you prof!!???? I dont believe it :lol:

[Professor]

Don't know what you should expect. My only experience is getting
recently caught doing 68 in a temporary 50 zone on the M4 (around
junction 10).

Surely not you prof!!???? I dont believe it :lol:

Yes, me eyesight is failing ... T'was too late when I saw the big
yellow camera pop out of the fog.

I promise that next time I'll go down as a proper badass, trying to
escape from the police at silly speeds.

[Professor]

Just found this:

http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/SpeedVSFines/SpeedVSFines.htm

According to the table given at this website, Ceri might have a
chance of getting away without a ban. Note that it would have been
better if Ceri were an elderly female rather than a young male.

[timwilky]

a colleague was nicked at 120 on the m6 toll. Got a good brief in the court. cost him but he kept his licence.


I guess the magistrates can be peruaded by a talented advocate who can put the mitigation into context. such as a one off, clear history, required for work, hardship a ban would bring, truely sorry, learnt his lesson etc.

Ceri. don't mention you are a biker to the court. You nasty hooligan motorcyclist, scaring old ladies with loud exhausts and attempting to pervert to course of justice by using unreadably small registration plates. You should all be transported to the colonies for life :wink: :wink:

[Blue Flame]

Ahh I was wondering about the legality of the M6 Toll and speeding.

Wondered whether or not you could get away with cos it is a 'private road'. :?

[mysteryjimbo]

I promise that next time I'll go down as a proper badass, trying to
escape from the police at silly speeds.

:wink: :lol: :lol:

[jonboy]

Wondered whether or not you could get away with cos it is a 'private road'. :?

No. Any road private or not that is deemed to be accessible to the public (such as Tesco's car park) has the Road Traffic Act applied to it. So if you ride like a nob past the rows of trolleys and a copper sees you, then you can deffo be prosecuted for Driving Without Due Care etc.


.

[vsumouse]

hi there, i got caught sppeding, i was doing 99mph in a 60mph zone on the whitby road (in a car) and some how a biker police man caught me, he was sat 100 yards up the road behind a bush and there was 2 markers on the road that got me, transfered the info back to him and next thing i see is a police bike in my rear mirror. pull me over saying my average was 39mph over the limit so i had to goto court and accept whatever they had to give me as i had no legs to stand on basically. i claimed that i was driving a car that was fairly new to me and i was not used to the power of this car then went onto claiming that i have now downgraded my car to a lower cc engine as i realised that bigger cars were not for me :D , then i went on to say that i travel the country with work and if i was to lose my licence by boss wouldnt be able to employ me, they took all this into coincederation and asked me if i had any holidays with work, (knew i was deffo getting a ban now) so i claimed they have all been taken this year.
final outcome was a 14 day ban, no points and £140 fine and about £40 costs.
not bad, thought i would of got worse. i think if you go in with the attitude you were in the wrong, it makes an inpression. dont waste your money on a solicitor. stand for yourself. good luck

[jim@55]

going down the s172 route is a dodgy one ,i dont think its 3 points as somebody said .the courts dont like it and they take the original offence into consideration ,so it may turn out to b a bad gamble :cry:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Wondered whether or not you could get away with cos it is a 'private road'. :?

No. Any road private or not that is deemed to be accessible to the public (such as Tesco's car park) has the Road Traffic Act applied to it. So if you ride like a nob past the rows of trolleys and a copper sees you, then you can deffo be prosecuted for Driving Without Due Care etc.


.

This is interesting. As you say any roads that the public have access to are covered by the Road Traffic act so that traffic rules apply. However, the owner of a private road has no authority to set or enforce a speed limit. And, since I can't imagine the council has the authority to set speed limits on private property either...

[Peter Henry]

The Proffesor wrote:

My only experience is getting
recently caught doing 68 in a temporary 50 zone on the M4 (around
junction 10). I didn't see the 50 sign, and I saw the camera too
late due to fog.


Sorry Prof but not only speeding,but doing it at a time when visibility was obviously restricted also? :? [-X

[Stig]

Don't ask for the photographic evidence until your in court. For an offence of plus 30mph over the speed limit it is automatically a court appearance offence.

The police MUST as a matter of course, send you the photo's BEFORE the court case. As this is what the will submit as evidence.

Should they NOT supply you with the photo's your home dry. Come the date of the court appearance and they produce the photo's, demand to know why you were not sent them. The case will collapse and you can ride/drive home.

It has been well documented that the Police have in plenty of cases forgotten to send out the "evidence" that they will be producing in court. Trouble is, Jo public are not aware that the Police have to do this, and therefore do not contest it in court.

[Ceri JC]

The police MUST as a matter of course, send you the photo's BEFORE the court case. As this is what the will submit as evidence.

Should they NOT supply you with the photo's your home dry. Come the date of the court appearance and they produce the photo's, demand to know why you were not sent them. The case will collapse and you can ride/drive home.


Excellent. I will make a note of this. Presumably, if I don't appoint a lawyer (don't think I will), it would be me that they should automatically send the photos/video to?

Ta for the advice folks. Speaking to people about this (even some who work with the courts :!: ) a lot of people seem to say with great certainty that "the fact you'll lose your job makes no difference; they'll ban you anyway, they don't care about you being unemployed", when I know for a fact of 2 people in my work who avoided bans for exactly this reason. Makes me skeptical about what advice to take. :)

The course of action I'm leaning towards; admit it was me, don't try to be evasive at all or string it out. In court, represent myself and put my "sorry" face on. Explain the need for the car for work (should I take a letter from work to prove this?) and reprecussions of my losing my licence/having a ban. Should I take my existing clean licence in with me as "proof" of my previous lack of convictions?

Thanks for the advice folks.

[Sudoxe]

Wondered whether or not you could get away with cos it is a 'private road'. :?

No. Any road private or not that is deemed to be accessible to the public (such as Tesco's car park) has the Road Traffic Act applied to it. So if you ride like a nob past the rows of trolleys and a copper sees you, then you can deffo be prosecuted for Driving Without Due Care etc.


.

This is interesting. As you say any roads that the public have access to are covered by the Road Traffic act so that traffic rules apply. However, the owner of a private road has no authority to set or enforce a speed limit. And, since I can't imagine the council has the authority to set speed limits on private property either...

Therefor Sainsburys carpark shuold be classfied as national speed limit for a single carage way, 60mph :P

Dan

[Ceri JC]

Another question I've just thought of; when I declare the points (once they're on my licence) to my insurer, will I be charged a surchage on my existing premium (already paid for the year) to keep it valid, or will I only take the "hit" at renewal time? If it's the former, what's to stop them from saying, "Right, that'll be an extra £9999999, please."?

[21QUEST]

Another question I've just thought of; when I declare the points (once they're on my licence) to my insurer, will I be charged a surchage on my existing premium (already paid for the year) to keep it valid, or will I only take the "hit" at renewal time? If it's the former, what's to stop them from saying, "Right, that'll be an extra £9999999, please."?

Bugger ! Hope it all works out Ok for you.

On the point of informing you insurers I don't think you have to till renewal time. I never did anyway till it was time to renew.

Cheers
Ben

[GSXR Carlos]

Unlucky mate, bit harsh for a clean license, see this is what happens in a cage, you get lazy :wink:



My Brother-in-law nearly lost his license, in the end it came down to a number of reasons that he needed a car, including travel to see his daughter and work etc, tell them most of what you've told us and grovel like made to take a spanking and 9 points and massive fine, then say thankyou and leave

my BiL also was banned for a month, so he didn't actually gain any more points, but now has to declare a ban on his license, and insurance


GOOD LUCK

[Viney]

I got done once for 124 on the M4. Got off with a £800 (inc costs) fine and 5 points!

[Jelster]

I have read somewhere that the case Big Ape mentions is quite common. The Police seem to take it for granted that you don't know the rules and won't argue the point in court.

If you do get the photo's though, your a bit knackered. Plead stupidity and poverty and you may be OK....

.

[Ceri JC]

If you do get the photo's though, your a bit knackered. Plead stupidity and poverty and you may be OK....

.

I'm hoping I can show them my bank statements showing my £750 a month ( :shock: I know...) tuition fees, to help reduce the fine.

[svsk2]

The course of action I'm leaning towards; admit it was me, don't try to be evasive at all or string it out. In court, represent myself and put my "sorry" face on. Explain the need for the car for work (should I take a letter from work to prove this?) and reprecussions of my losing my licence/having a ban. Should I take my existing clean licence in with me as "proof" of my previous lack of convictions?



Yes to both questions.

[Mogs]

Ceri

I could understand if it was on the bike, but in a cage during worktime. The thought that comes to mind is "you complete plank".

I hope you get lucky and get to keep your licence.

[Ceri JC]

Ceri

I could understand if it was on the bike, but in a cage during worktime. The thought that comes to mind is "you complete plank".

I hope you get lucky and get to keep your licence.

I know, I know. It's not even like I was rushing to get out on site. I was actually coming home from a job and as far as I can remember, I didn't have anything I urgently needed to do at home either. :oops:

[Ceri JC]

I've been doing a bit of research about the consequences of points/a ban on insurance premiums. Apparently they can ask if you have ever had a ban and you have to answer truthfully: To all intents and purposes, it lasts for life.

Am I right in thinking points drop off after 3 years and after that you don't have to declare them to insurers? Do points drop off 3 years after you get them (even if you get say, 6 or 9 in one go) or is it 3 years per 3 points (so 9 years for 9 points to disappear)?

A whole aspect of motoring in the UK that I hadn't previously needed to bother with, has suddenly become important and I realise I know b-all about it. :?

The slight (only very slight) plus side of the whole thing is that I'll be able to "prove" to people who don't believe it that if, like me, you have a car licence for several years, then get a bike licence, then under 2 years, get 6 points or more, that you DO NOT lose your licence automatically, as you have had a licence for more than 2 years, it is just that you have recently added a new category to it.

[Warthog]

The slight (only very slight) plus side of the whole thing is that I'll be able to "prove" to people who don't believe it that if, like me, you have a car licence for several years, then get a bike licence, then under 2 years, get 6 points or more, that you DO NOT lose your licence automatically, as you have had a licence for more than 2 years, it is just that you have recently added a new category to it.

Thats exactly my case! You mean to say I have been pussy-footing it around for the last 20 months for no reason!!?

Right, thats it *fetches knee sliders and nitro kit*

[Carsick]

I've been doing a bit of research about the consequences of points/a ban on insurance premiums. Apparently they can ask if you have ever had a ban and you have to answer truthfully: To all intents and purposes, it lasts for life.
They could ask, but I would argue that it could be considered an unreasonable question. They would usually ask for 5 years or so.


Am I right in thinking points drop off after 3 years and after that you don't have to declare them to insurers? Do points drop off 3 years after you get them (even if you get say, 6 or 9 in one go) or is it 3 years per 3 points (so 9 years for 9 points to disappear)?
3 years to no longer mean anything, 4 years to drop out of existence and however long they ask for to declare. You still have to declare it if they ask for a long enough period to cover the time you were convicted.
e.g. sp30 given 1 Jan 2000 on the 2nd Jan 2003 they would no longer count towards totting up and on the 2nd Jan 2004 the points will not be recorded on your license and you would only have to declare them if they asked for convictions in the last 5 years or more.


The slight (only very slight) plus side of the whole thing is that I'll be able to "prove" to people who don't believe it that if, like me, you have a car licence for several years, then get a bike licence, then under 2 years, get 6 points or more, that you DO NOT lose your licence automatically, as you have had a licence for more than 2 years, it is just that you have recently added a new category to it.
I don't see why that would need proving, the law as explained on the dvla website is quite clear. It states that within 2 years of gaining your first full entitlement you are subject to the probationary rules regarding new drivers. After that initial 2 years you are no longer a new driver, no matter what categories you subsequently add to your license.

[Ceri JC]

I don't see why that would need proving, the law as explained on the dvla website is quite clear. It states that within 2 years of gaining your first full entitlement you are subject to the probationary rules regarding new drivers. After that initial 2 years you are no longer a new driver, no matter what categories you subsequently add to your license.

As Warthog's post shows, it's at the very least "a common misconception", if not (which I reckon it probably is), what most people think.

Ta for the comments on the other points, I agree that it seems an unreasonable question, "have you ever had a ban?" and then to give a bloke in his 40s who is now a traffic cop higher premiums because he once, as a young lad, got a ban for speeding.

Incidentally, what's the "criminality" of points/a ban? Am I right in thinking they don't normally need to go on job applications (unless driving is integral to the job)?

[Carsick]

All job applications I've filled in explicity excluse driving convctions.
I think for some stuff you would have to declare them, but if driving is that important, they would specifically ask, I would have thought.
I think they qualify as spent (under rehabilitation of offenders act thing) after 3 years for speeding, more for stuff like driving under the influence.

[Warthog]

Yeah I can't remember where I heard it, but it wasn't a random rumour, it was either from my driving instructor or examiner or from paperwork with the license; in both cases they are probably just assuming it is your first full license :?

[Stig]

From experience, make sure you attend court early. This will give you the chance and option to speak to the duty solicitor who can, if you wish, act on your behalf.

Dress in your smartest clothes, look very very sorry for yourself and when you have the option to speak for yourself (you have this option regardless of having a solicitor or not) explain in detail how sorry you are, that you realise that what you did could have carried far worse consequences than just loosing your licence, and explain that this was a momentary lack of sensibility in an otherwise x amount of years of careful and considerate driving.

As for you taking your licence, I believe you will be requested to take it with you in any case, in case they do ban you. Your licence will be taken from you whilst you stand in the dock so to speak.

Oh and yes most definitely state the reasons why you think you should keep your licence, it does work (sometimes).

Best of luck m8 :thumbsup:

[northwind]

I'm hoping I can show them my bank statements showing my £750 a month ( :shock: I know...) tuition fees, to help reduce the fine.

£750 A MONTH! Are you training to be an astronaut? Or some sort of deity?

[kwak zzr]

tell the judge your training to be his boss! :D

[mac608]

Ceri I could be joining you. Clocked at I don't know what on the M56 this weekend. In the car. Camera was on a bridge. I think he got me before I saw him.

Haven't had the nerve to tell my wife - she's always telling me I drive too fast, so no sympathy from that direction.

Just have to wait for the letter now. :(

I thinking of signing up for a RoSPA course & hope that will impress, if I have to go to Court. Already an IAM member, won't look good if I tell a Court that.

[Ceri JC]

I'm hoping I can show them my bank statements showing my £750 a month ( :shock: I know...) tuition fees, to help reduce the fine.

£750 A MONTH! Are you training to be an astronaut? Or some sort of deity?

I started doing an MSc in Information Security and Corporate Intelligence, but they canned that course after my first year, so now it's Information Security and Computer Crime. The "reason" it costs so much is that it's being done part time, so a lot of people's employers will pay it for them. However, my lot know full well I'm likely to leave once I have it, so won't. It's scandalous it costs 3x as much as doing it full time, as there are no additional costs to the uni in doing it full time (we actually see lecturers/use labs less often), and even full time, it costs 3x as much as most full time MScs.

Needless to say, as a result, my disposable income (once I've paid for fuel/tyres for the bike, which I need to get to work) is about the same now as when I was a student. I'm hoping this will be taken into account when they dish out any fines. An £800 fine really would be crippling. :(

[Professor]

Another question I've just thought of; when I declare the points (once they're on my licence) to my insurer, will I be charged a surchage on my existing premium (already paid for the year) to keep it valid, or will I only take the "hit" at renewal time? If it's the former, what's to stop them from saying, "Right, that'll be an extra £9999999, please."?

Ceri, it turns out that you have to inform your insurers of your
points only at the time of renewal. As I mentioned in a
previous post, I informed my car insurance company of the points I
acquired but it just happened to coincide with renewal so they made
the appropriate adjustments (extra 15 squid). But when I tried to
inform Bennetts earlier today (renewal due in October) I was told
that there is no need to report until renewal time.

[Ceri JC]

Another question I've just thought of; when I declare the points (once they're on my licence) to my insurer, will I be charged a surchage on my existing premium (already paid for the year) to keep it valid, or will I only take the "hit" at renewal time? If it's the former, what's to stop them from saying, "Right, that'll be an extra £9999999, please."?

Ceri, it turns out that you have to inform your insurers of your
points only at the time of renewal. As I mentioned in a
previous post, I informed my car insurance company of the points I
acquired but it just happened to coincide with renewal so they made
the appropriate adjustments (extra 15 squid). But when I tried to
inform Bennetts earlier today (renewal due in October) I was told
that there is no need to report until renewal time.

Excellent. Thanks Prof.

[timwilky]

Don't repeat my younger brother mistake and drive to court. If you may not be in a position to drive it home.



But then again he wasn't there for a driving offence. Naughty Boy.

[Ceri JC]

Don't repeat my younger brother mistake and drive to court. If you may not be in a position to drive it home.

But then again he wasn't there for a driving offence. Naughty Boy.

Yep, a mate's friend foolishly drove to court and got a ban and had to leave the car there. I think I'll try to get a lift from my folks.

[mac608]

Well I've had the NIP and settled the fixed penalty.

It wasn't as bad as I thought. The NIP was for 89mph, and the fixed penalty £60.

Just waiting now for my licence to be returned to see what code they put on it.

[rob13]

sp60?

[Gnan]

you don't want an SP60 that'll kill your insurance

[keithd]

you don't want an SP60 that'll kill your insurance

i've had an sp60 and it made little difference to my insurance. maybe it depends on age...?

[Gnan]

no-one should have an sp60 for exceeding a speed limit - sp60 is "undefined speed limit offence" which is why the insurance companies don't like them.

[Kate]

Well I've had the NIP and settled the fixed penalty.

It wasn't as bad as I thought. The NIP was for 89mph, and the fixed penalty £60.

Just waiting now for my licence to be returned to see what code they put on it.

The SP30 usually comes with a £60 fine.

The '30' '40' '60' in a SP concerns the speed limit that was broken. Ie SP30 for exceeding a 30 limit and a SP60 for exceeding a 60 limit. The fine remains the same at the moment.

I think it depends on what you are trying to insure tbh, on how much the insurance company cares. I've got a SP30 and that added an extra £550 to my car insurance, but it was a Group 20 car so I'm guessing thats what did it. Whatever speeding offence it is, it will affect the insurance.

[Cloggsy]

The SP30 comes with a £60 fine

Does it :?: Mine (in 1991,) came with a £150 fine :cry:

Its long-gone now though :twisted:

[Kate]

lol! I've been told the 'usual' fine for a SP30 is a £60 fine.

[keithd]

no-one should have an sp60 for exceeding a speed limit - sp60 is "undefined speed limit offence" which is why the insurance companies don't like them.

i got my sp60 for doing 70 in a 60.

hence my insurance being barely affected.

[Gnan]

The '30' '40' '60' in a SP concerns the speed limit that was broken. Ie SP30 for exceeding a 30 limit and a SP60 for exceeding a 60 limit. The fine remains the same at the moment.


wrong i'm afraid

SP30 is the offence given for exceeding a speed limit on a normal public road (i.e 20/30/40/50/60)

SP50 should be given for exceeding the motorway speed limit

the rest are to do with specific vehicle types except 60 which is 'undefined' (hence noone should really be given one)

[Gnan]

just found the offence codes FYI

SP10 Exceeding goods vehicle speed limits
SP20 Exceeding speed limit for type of vehicle (excluding goods or passenger vehicles)
SP30 Exceeding statutory speed limit on a public road
SP40 Exceeding passenger vehicle speed limit
SP50 Exceeding speed limit on a motorway
SP60 Undefined speed limit offence

[Ceri JC]

I've still not heard anything since posting my NIP back almost a month ago. I wonder what's going on...

[Mogs]

I've still not heard anything since posting my NIP back almost a month ago. I wonder what's going on...

Hopefully you won't hear until after May 20 so you can still join us on the Welsh ride out.

You never know you may even get to go on the annual.

[Ceri JC]

I've still not heard anything since posting my NIP back almost a month ago. I wonder what's going on...

Hopefully you won't hear until after May 20 so you can still join us on the Welsh ride out.

You never know you may even get to go on the annual.


Unlikely as license or not, I'll be in Switzerland :)

I will hopefully be able to make the Welsh rideout.

[GSXR Carlos]

sounds promising, i'm keeping my fingers crossed for you mate

[Daimo]

[quote=mac608]The '30' '40' '60' in a SP concerns the speed limit that was broken. Ie SP30 for exceeding a 30 limit and a SP60 for exceeding a 60 limit.

I got an SP30 for doing 116mph average and 131mph peak? (dual carrageway)

6 points and a £400 fine.

VERY lucky, i take it a lot easier and learnt my lesson!!!!

[Stig]

I've still not heard anything since posting my NIP back almost a month ago. I wonder what's going on...

Mrs Ape got caught speeding and was sent a NIP. She waited over a month until one day she got her licence returned unchanged and her cheque back saying they were no longer going to prosecute. Lucky lucky barsteward she is. :lol:

[Valman]

just found the offence codes FYI

SP20 Exceeding speed limit for type of vehicle (excluding goods or passenger vehicles)

Interesting, so can anyone speeding, in a private car, be done for an SP20 then? The reason I ask is that my brother was done last year for speeding but got SP20 written on his license even though he was in his own car on a dual carriageway.

[Ceri JC]

The results are in. Following a court appearence earlier today, 6 points and £190 fine (including costs). I think I got off lightly. Still, insurance could be pricey, come renewals. :(

Crocodile tears of remorse, a couple of character references/reasons why my losing my licence would impact on people other than myself, plus the fact I had signed up to IAM since the offence and had had my test booked in (until this came through :evil: ) no doubt helped.

[Baph]

Congratulations! Being relitivley new to the site I had no idea of the impending court action, but good news non-the less.

I've also educated myself a little by reading all of the thread :D

[Ceri JC]

Congratulations! Being relitivley new to the site I had no idea of the impending court action, but good news non-the less.

I've also educated myself a little by reading all of the thread :D

Cheers. Including the fine and insurance hikes for the next few years, I'd say this episode has cost me about £1500-2000.

So, that's £2K for dramatically reduced travelling times the past 2 years. Well worth it IMO! :twisted:

I won't do it anymore, not least because it'll cost more (too much) next time...

[Jabba]

Will 6 points really make that much difference to your insurance premium?


Anyway, I think you're a jammy git but don't begrudge you the luck :wink: Take it easy from now on :thumbsup:

Does the 6 points mean that you can't continue with the IAM Skills for Life jobbie?

[andyaikido]

no-one should have an sp60 for exceeding a speed limit - sp60 is "undefined speed limit offence" which is why the insurance companies don't like them.

I got an SP60 (expired now) insurers didn't seem too bothered. I think they're more interested in number of points and type of offence.

[andyaikido]

I've still not heard anything since posting my NIP back almost a month ago. I wonder what's going on...

Don't get your hopes up, took nearly 3 months between my reply and being sent a summons.

[Jabba]

I've still not heard anything since posting my NIP back almost a month ago. I wonder what's going on...

Don't get your hopes up, took nearly 3 months between my reply and being sent a summons.

Can't help thinking that you should have read the most recent posts before posting :lol:

[Ceri JC]

Will 6 points really make that much difference to your insurance premium?


24, Male, lives in Barry, 6 points for speeding; not a pretty picture, insurance-wise :)

In all seriousness, yes; I'd gotten a few tentative quotes prior to the hearing for both a ban and 6 points. It looks like it's as follows, bike was more than doubled, to £600-odd, TPFT. Car insurance went up more for smaller cars, for some bizarre reason, than on more powerful cars, the price hike was less (and not just proportionally) than that on small cars. IE price hike on a 1.3 Corolla = from about £400 to £750. On a 1.9 Fabia VRS, it went from £1200 to about £1400. On really flash cars, the difference was £50 or so. Could be the excuse I need to get a Skyline or Impreza. :lol:

Luckily, my bike insurance for this year was sorted back in August, so the hike for that is some way off. Work does my car insurance, but I'm looking at getting a car allowance instead as I intend to increase the amount I use my bike for business, which will mean insuring a car too.


Anyway, I think you're a jammy git but don't begrudge you the luck :wink: Take it easy from now on :thumbsup:
?

Shall do. I think the family, friends, work, scouts etc. and all who were so supportive might be a little bit less understanding next time. :)


Does the 6 points mean that you can't continue with the IAM Skills for Life jobbie?

Nope; so long as you don't go over 6 points you can take the test no problem. I've been "test-ready" for a while (passed both mock tests with flying colours), but the court having my licence had ironically prevented me from taking the IAM test. A shame really, as it would have further sweetened things if I could have waved an IAM pass certificate at the bench. :)

Now I know I'm not banned, I'll be doing my test in the next week or so. Once I've got a car sorted (come to think of it, I could do it in my gf's Fiesta, which I'm insured on) I'll do the car one too.

[Ceri JC]

I've still not heard anything since posting my NIP back almost a month ago. I wonder what's going on...

Don't get your hopes up, took nearly 3 months between my reply and being sent a summons.

That's nothing; these cowboys left it to within 2 days of the 6 months elapsing before they booked me into court. :D

[Jabba]

:thumbsup:

[Jabba]

That's nothing; these cowboys left it to within 2 days of the 6 months elapsing before they booked me into court. :D

Don't forget there's two stages:

1. Police laying the information before the Court (this is where the 6-month rule comes in)
2. Court setting a date and serving the summons (no time limit)


If you've been in Court in less than 6 months then you've been lucky. Again :thumbsup:

[Mogs]

All the usual IAM crew wondered where you'd gone yesterday, until Chris turned up to announce that the beak had asked for your licence :( . We feared the worse.

I'm glad your still on the road :)

[Ceri JC]

All the usual IAM crew wondered where you'd gone yesterday, until Chris turned up to announce that the beak had asked for your licence :( . We feared the worse.

I'm glad your still on the road :)

Sorry, I should of said; I'd mentioned it to Nick V. I thought he'd of passed it on. Yep, I should be there this weekend, unless Lyndsey wants to do my test on Sunday.

BTW, was it you coming Eastbound along the M4 on the approach to Newport on Friday afternoon last week? Looked like your bike/leathers, but I can't remember what your lid looks like. I was coming the other way in a black Astra SRI.

[trickywoos]

Glad you're still on the road Ceri!!!!! :D Nightmare!!

[andyaikido]

That's nothing; these cowboys left it to within 2 days of the 6 months elapsing before they booked me into court. :D

Don't forget there's two stages:

1. Police laying the information before the Court (this is where the 6-month rule comes in)
2. Court setting a date and serving the summons (no time limit)


If you've been in Court in less than 6 months then you've been lucky. Again :thumbsup:

3 months for the summons and the court date is in 6 weeks. Must have fast-tracked me.

[muffles]

Oh, one more thing; What's the timeframe for them to do this/call you to court? The date of the letter is 17/03/06, but the actual "act" was dated 09/02/06. I take it camera vans are the ones that they're allowed to take 6 months over, rather than 14 days (cameras?)?

:? a nip has to be served in 14 days, if you received it after 14 days and there was no good reason i thought you were scot-free :?
did you check pepipoo before responding? bit late now i suppose...! as far as i know - and pepipoo would have confirmed :? - this is the same for all driving offences that result in a nip.

[Tzindo]

I want to know how you got 102 in a Corsa? I don't agree with the insane greed that is safety camera robery in this country but why did you do that in the first place?

Having said that conditions skill and modern machinary should not be subject to the on off approach that is the 1970's speed limits we live with today. Mixed feelings about what you did. A camear after all does not stop a crash - it does allow a fine to be raised.

I guess it could have been worse. If you had been on a bike you would have faced a prison sentence. Remember the guy that was caught doing >160 and was put away for two years?

With modern bikes it is easy to speed. In a Corsa? I have my doubts.

[northwind]

I want to know how you got 102 in a Corsa?

I bet Daimo could top that ;)

[Ceri JC]

I want to know how you got 102 in a Corsa? I don't agree with the insane greed that is safety camera robery in this country but why did you do that in the first place?

Having said that conditions skill and modern machinary should not be subject to the on off approach that is the 1970's speed limits we live with today. Mixed feelings about what you did. A camear after all does not stop a crash - it does allow a fine to be raised.


100 on that stretch of road, at that time of day, in those weather conditions was almost completely safe (yes, I concede no motoring is completely safe and that there's always some risk, but I maintain doing 100 there was considerably safer than the far lesser offence of doing 40 in a busy 30); hence why even during the "emergency stop"-style braking down to 80 I did when I saw the van, the car didn't even lose grip/feel unsettled. It'd of been safe to do that speed on a bike, in a car with 4 wheels and ABS it certainly was. Incidentally, there were no other cars on that stretch of road at all. If I'd misjudged it, it had gone pear-shaped and I'd hurt anyone, it'd be me and me alone. Had I been doing 100 undertaking heavy traffic in the hard shoulder, of course a harsher sentence would have been appropriate (and of course I'd never have done it in the first place).

I wasn't out for a thrash and wouldn't even describe that sort of speed as "having fun" (on that road, in a car, at least). I was simply doing close to the fastest I felt comfortable doing on that road, in order to get home sooner. I don't know you and what sort of driving you do/experience you have, so apologies if I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, but most people who drive long distance regularly for business see lots of cars doing 100 or thereabouts. It's not one nutter in a blue moon, it's a fairly commonplace occurence outside of the rush hour. For example, I was coming down the same stretch of road last week (at a "less likely to get you points" 80) and in the space of 10 miles I was overtaken by at least four (so about 10% of the traffic on the road at the time) cars who were doing 100. All of them were modern cars, well driven and they were maintaining excellent lane discipline, giving all the correct indication, etc. what's the difference between them and me? They were lucky the camera van wasn't out that afternoon, that's all.


I guess it could have been worse. If you had been on a bike you would have faced a prison sentence. Remember the guy that was caught doing >160 and was put away for two years?

No disrespect and apologies in advance if I've misunderstood what you've said, but you think I'd be facing prison for that sort of speed on an NSL on a bike, considering I wasn't driving dangerously at the time?! :shock: Sorry, but you sound like a lot of the ill-informed people who were stating "over 100 is an automatic ban" as if it's some set in stone legal fact (it's not). What you've said would never happen, I know the magistrates might have an aversion to motorcycles, but do you really think their prejudice towards them is so great that they'd have banged me up for it on a bike?

It was actually mentioned that I was a motorcyclist in court and that the fact I haven't been done for speeding once on a bike (which as you say, is a lot faster) would suggest that I wasn't a habitual speeder. Didn't seem to harm my defense, did it?

Yes people have gone to jail for speeding (on cars and bikes- the bikes were just more famous because it was the speeding "record" in the UK), but there's a marked difference between >160 and 102 and thankfully, the courts recognise that. Incidentally, the chap who went to prison for >160 obviously learnt his lesson and admirably demonstrated he had mended his ways: The day he got out and had his licence back, he bought a K5 GSX-R 1000 and within 2 weeks had killed himself on it in a high speed crash. Not quite the same sort of behaviour as going "a bit quick" in a car to get home on a Friday afternoon, is it?


With modern bikes it is easy to speed. In a Corsa? I have my doubts.

Incidentally, the car wasn't the sort of Corsa you probably imagine. I wasn't a 8 year old, 1000cc banger that I was ragging every last drop out of. It was a brand new 1.4 SXI+ (factory boy racer, the tastefully chav'd up one with sporting pretensions). Top speed of over 110mph and as Daimo will no doubt pop in to clarify (beat me to it Northwind :wink:) for such a small engine it's reasonably torquey and accelerates quickly, even at highish speeds. The rate of acceleration hadn't significantly dropped by the time I reached 100; I didn't need to sit in top gear with the accelerator floored for 2 miles to get those sort of speeds.

Of course, it wasn't as easy as it is on a bike, but it wasn't exactly difficult either.

[Tzindo]

Hi Ceri JC

As you pointed out you were "safe", conditions were good, the car was more than capable of the speed you were doing. So I think my point is this - the law should reflect that modern cars and bikes are not the same as those on the road when the law was imposed - effectivly it is 30 years out of date on motorways.

Would you agree the law is wrong? Or, as is my opinion, the law should take into consideration circumstance, road conditions, ability of the driver and experience, type of vehicle used and condition, something that a camera van does not. 70 MPH in fog is legal from a camera van's perspective, but obviously very dangerous. 102 in your circumstance does not sound dangerous from what you have described.

It would be difficult to take into consideration all of those factors when deciding to procescute you. Much simpler to state that you broke the law.

I was attempting to widen the debate and I am sorry to hear you were caught. There are few bikers and car drivers who can safely say that they have not broken the law speeding, myself included and yes I have been caught also like yourself in a car, rather than a bike, a Mini One Diesel.

The law should be updated to reflect reality. I just don't think that the state will do so given the financial incentives and the difficulties of assessing all circumstantial evidence, if common sense were used instead the black and white of a camera van. Here a traffic policeman may have turned a blind eye.

As for the guy who was locked up and on release then killed himself on his bike - I still feel that it was wrong to send him to prison, he was I believe caught by his own camera and did not speed in vilages and towns - least that's my understanding of events. Prison clearly did not work for him either.

Will you be modifying your behaviour in future? Does the enforcement of this law work or is it simply out of date?

[Ceri JC]

The law should be updated to reflect reality. I just don't think that the state will do so given the financial incentives and the difficulties of assessing all circumstantial evidence, if common sense were used instead the black and white of a camera van. Here a traffic policeman may have turned a blind eye.

That's the only real reason I feel hard done by getting caught. A traffic cop may have pulled me, see my previously clean record, give me a telling off and sent me on my way, or perhaps recorded the speed they saw me at as 95, so it'd just be a 3 points NIP affair. Also, as you say, they may even of turned a blind eye completely, given the circumstances. I know several people both of these scenarios have happened to. I don't know anyone who ever got any leniency from a camera van. :)


As for the guy who was locked up and on release then killed himself on his bike - I still feel that it was wrong to send him to prison, he was I believe caught by his own camera and did not speed in vilages and towns - least that's my understanding of events. Prison clearly did not work for him either.


Yes, whilst I think it's questionable if 160 is ever really that safe (but I'm open minded enough to accept there are a great many people who believe 100 to be inherently dangerous and a guarantee that you'll crash, which of course I disagree with, so I shouldn't be too certain that 160 is never justified) it'd depend on where he was doing it. I don't know the specifics of what he was doing when he got caught the first time, but when he got killed, it was because a car pulled out on him (from a side road from the sounds of it). If that's the case, I'd say it's his fault; you can't do 150 down a 60mph a road and expect traffic to see you and not pull out; that's why I think it's (morally) wrong to do that sort of speed on sections of road that have places for other vehicles to pull out from.


Will you be modifying your behaviour in future? Does the enforcement of this law work or is it simply out of date?

I'd be lying if I said I'll never speed again and I'm sure (once or twice at least :wink:) my speedo will once again wander past the ton. The fact that I have yet to be convinced I've done anything morally wrong is what stops me from being able to say I won't do it again. It's only the fear of prosecution (and the associated costs) that will keep me from doing it as often as I used to. I think I'll probably carry on much the same on roads where I am confident that I won't be caught Eg roads I'm very familiar with, that have no place for camera vans to hide. 5 years from now (when they won't be able to consider this offence when passing judgement should I get caught again) and I'll (hopefully) considerably richer, so the effects of a fine will be less, I imagine I'll speed as much as I used to (provided speed enforcement methods are the same).

I think my main problem with our current speed limits is exactly the situation you describe; 70 in fog, on a crowded dual carriageway is far worse than 100 in ideal conditions on an empty road, but it's the former which is legal. It's understandably difficult to legally pinpoint the factors that make a given speed safe or not. This is why I think the only just way of enforcing them is through experienced, highly trained traffic police, who stand to not personally gain anything for booking you. That's about the closest you'd get to an impartial, unbiased and accurate opinion on whether or not you were speeding dangerously, which is what matters.

I'm not that bothered by static cameras; I learn where they are, tend not to speed on unfamiliar roads and in any event, try to ride so I can stop in the distance I can see to be clear, so can always slow down in plenty of time. The reason I hate camera vans so much (and this has always been the case- long before I got caught) is that they can catch you from so far away and there's no opportunity to slow down. Whilst from an enforcement point of view, it's ideal. From a danger one, it's absurd. I don't have much sympathy with people who sail through a set of dragons teeth at twice the posted limit; If you couldn't see/slow in time for a fluro box on a stick and a load of white paint on the road, what chance have you got in stopping in time for a vehicle ahead that has broken down, or a lorry's load that has spilt all over the road?

The day I was caught by the camera van, I was hundreds of meters away. The camera operator could have been stood in the middle of the road; I'd of seen him in time and been able to comfortably stop before I got to him.

[Professor]

Having returned from holiday I learned of the outcome only now.
Congratulations, Ceri JC, on getting away with it!

I myself also had worries (though on a smaller scale) caused by the
3 points I got for speeding in February. I duly reported this to
Bennetts and anxiously waited for my renewal quote. It turned out
that my premium actually went DOWN from £150 to £114 (both figures
fully comp). Crime pays!

[Jabba]

:? a nip has to be served in 14 days, if you received it after 14 days and there was no good reason i thought you were scot-free :?

There's no need for a postal NIP if the driver was stopped and cautioned at the roadside by a unformed copper.

Courts accept "posted within 14 days of the alleged offence to the registered keeper at the time of the alleged offence". They take "Day 1" to be the first working day after the alleged offence, so if you get caught on a bank holiday weekend then "Day 1" is the Tuesday.

If you are in any doubt as to the 14 day bit, keep the envelope in which the NIP arrives as the Courts use the postmark as proof of posting and not the date on the letter/NIP (which could be a few days earlier).

[muffles]

yeah i know about the verbal NIPs, but he got caught by a camera van (unknowingly) and received a NIP in the post :lol:

[Jabba]

yeah i know about the verbal NIPs, but he got caught by a camera van (unknowingly) and received a NIP in the post :lol:

Some of the posts were very long and, to be honest, I couldn't be arsed reading them :roll:

Must be getting lazy in my old age :lol:

[muffles]

yeah i know about the verbal NIPs, but he got caught by a camera van (unknowingly) and received a NIP in the post :lol:

Some of the posts were very long and, to be honest, I couldn't be arsed reading them :roll:

Must be getting lazy in my old age :lol:

it was in the 2nd paragraph of the first post :lol: that's laziness for you :wink: :D

[Jelster]

I think my main problem with our current speed limits is exactly the situation you describe; 70 in fog, on a crowded dual carriageway is far worse than 100 in ideal conditions on an empty road, but it's the former which is legal.

I hear what your saying, but any decent traffic cop will tell you that you may travel up to the speed limit if the conditions allow. If you were to travel at 60mph when the speed was not appropriate then they'd book you for another offence which would probably be much more severe (driving without due care & attention or maybe careless driving).

Both of these carry far harsher penalties, (and more stealth tax on insurance!) but as you say, cannot be judged by a camera. So the need for the traditional traffic cop is still very much in evidence, but that doesn't make the Government money does it ?

I was chatting to copper at a party the other week, he's based in Surrey, and they have only 2 permenant traffic cars to cover the whole counties motorways.... That's a big chunk of the M3 and a very busy part of the M25. Just ridiculous really....

.

[Viney]

:? a nip has to be served in 14 days, if you received it after 14 days and there was no good reason i thought you were scot-free :?

There's no need for a postal NIP if the driver was stopped and cautioned at the roadside by a unformed copper.
Just a sort of blue mess on the floor then?

[Ceri JC]

Update:

Turns out I got away even lighter than I thought (aside from the clowns in the collections dept. of the court fining me twice-:toss: they've rectified it now though).

A copper was looking at my licence (doing my advanced test- not being naughty :roll: :) ) and said, "I thought you said you had an SP60?"

I replied that I thought I did and asked to see the licence.

It showed an SP30 as the only offence.

I described the offence and told him I assumed they'd have given me an SP60. He agreed that that's what he would of thought.

So, it looks like my insurance will only marginally increase (if at all, depending on the insurer) and all this whole thing has cost me is £190.

Jammy Git or what? 8)

[Samnooshka]

:shock: :shock: Ceri / Treacle... stop using up all the good luck... save some for the rest of us :wink:

Well done mate! Take it easy from now on though eh :wink: