£1.5m in speeding fines from Dorset GATSO could be refunded

Darren

The Traffic Order for a GATSO speed camera on the A35 in Chideock, Dorset was found to be invalid following a test case and as a result, more than 24,000 drivers may have to be refunded.

The Traffic Order referred to a road that did not exist and now authorities are left facing a £1.5 million bill to repay the fines collected from motorists convicted by the camera.

But rather than take immediate action to cancel the convictions and issue refunds, Dorset Safety Camera Partnership are to review individual cases claiming that as some drivers had admitted speeding they would not wish to seek a refund!

Given that it is near impossible to defend speeding charges unless you can afford risking a large amount of money of legal advisers, the vast majority of motorists would of course admit to the charge rather than choosing to fight it in court.

A similar case in Cheshire last year saw the partnership there contact every motorist and issue immediate refunds and revocation of fines. Why Dorset are not acting in the same manner is inexcusable.
_________________
Darren Griffin

navver · Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:56 pm Post subject:

"as some drivers had admitted speeding they would not wish to seek a refund!"

Why would they not wish to seek a refund. I definitely would!

£1.5m from one camera, they'll soon make it up on another.

Just shows how money grabbing they are.

JimmyTheHand · Frequent Visitor Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 386

what they really mean - most drivers won't hear about it, so they don't have a £1.5 million hole in their budget.
_________________
J.

blackrat62 · Occasional Visitor Joined: Sep 08, 2005 Posts: 47

They are obliged to consider refunding the fines -

Firstly, in the absence of a Traffic Management order there is no offence - no offence, no fine.

Secondly, dealing with the fact that some people pleaded guilty, people have pleaded guilty on the basis of the information they were given as fact by the police - if that information was wrong they are entitled to appeal.

peanutome · Occasional Visitor Joined: Jul 17, 2005 Posts: 10

SWINES! Give em all back the money; no wonder nobody trusts speed camera motives or the Police! I say again SWINES!

David

iheron · Occasional Visitor Joined: Oct 09, 2006 Posts: 1

"According to the official Highways Agency paperwork, the length of the speed restricted zone is measured from the junction of "Seatown Road" in the village. But judge Anne Arnold realised that although locals refer to the side road off the A35 as Seatown Road, there is no such place on any map. The court heard that the road is actually called Duck Street. Locally it is known as Seatown Road because it leads to the coastal village of Seatown."

If anyone thinks an admin error like this means they're morally innocent of speeding then it's a sad indictment of the state of things. This is a 30mph zone, not a stretch of motorway, so there are probably children crossing to walk to school, and old folk with their shopping. Anyone who applies for a refund would deserve to get the paperwork reissued with the admin error corrected; albeit that won't happen.

Darren · Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:16 am Post subject:

The powers that be have just as much responsibility to ensure laws are enacted correctly as we do in obeying them. If they are not then they are invalid.

It's a 2-way street.
_________________
Darren Griffin

M8TJT · Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:29 am Post subject:

Iheron, welcome to our forums Very Happy

Darren · Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:32 am Post subject:

It might be an admin error that 'caused' it but the result is the camera could not legally enforce prosecutions. Think of it as a discredited witness.

You can't back date law.
_________________
Darren Griffin

	PocketGPS
	Web