Penalty Points Process Clarity

Seth Brundle

Can someone enlighten me as to the legal aspects of the points system as I have heard so many differing stories.
What I think is correct...
Once you have been caught speeding (say on Jan 4 2005) the gardai have 3 months in which to notify you. If they exceed this 3 months (i.e. April 3rd) then it is annulled. Once the gardai notify you they also notify the DoE who have up to two years (Apr 3rd 2007) in which to endorse your licence. Once the licence is endorsed you keep the points for three years from date of endorsement.

Is there any way for the insurance companies (i.e. Hibernian) to find out if any points are pending?

Note: I am not aware of any points due, etc on my clean licence!

magpie

If you don't tell your insurance company of any points you are liable for a €2500 excess on any claims. I don't think you have to tell them until they are actually on your record.

Seth Brundle

Yes but what about points pending. As Hibernian have access to the points database they may know about pending points before you do!

Krusty_Clown

magpie wrote:

If you don't tell your insurance company of any points you are liable for a €2500 excess on any claims. I don't think you have to tell them until they are actually on your record.

You mean you have to call them up and volunteer this information?
I thought it was all available to them via a database..

Seth Brundle

Krusty_Clown wrote:

You mean you have to call them up and volunteer this information?
I thought it was all available to them via a database..

We are going off topic here but only Hibs have access to the points DB. However, others may ask if you have points or endorsements when taking yout the policy and if you lie then you may land in bother if you try and claim. Ringing them up after your policy has begun with any info may be detailed in your documentation.

Seth Brundle

I emailed info@penaltypoints.ie with the same message I made in my original post above the other day and seemingly after the mail was forwarded several times I got this reply...

Mr Barron(!)

I refer to your e-mail query to the National Safety Council regarding the above. There is no legal time limit from the date an alleged penalty point offence occurs to the date when a valid fixed charge notice can issue in relation to this alleged offence from the Garda Siochana. You might like to discuss such operational/procedural matters with the Garda Siochana.

Once the Garda Siochana have notified the Vehicle Licensing Division, Shannon, Co. Clare, regarding the number of penalty points to be entered on a Driver's Record, this procedure is carried out within a couple of days and the driver concerned is duly notified of the date from which the three years for these points will commence. The driver's licence is not 'endorsed' with penalty points. There is no legal time limit in relation to the notification from this Department regarding the penalty points on the driver's record. However, as I already mentioned, in practice it is done within a few days of the receipt of the notification within the Vehicle Licensing Division.

In relation to penalty points recorded, only the driver concerned is issued with this information at present.

I hope this is of assistance to you.

If you have any further queries you can also phone me at 01

---

.

Kind regards

1. This means that the gardai and the DoE are allowed to take several years if they wish to notify the driver. There have been several reported instances of where a driver was not made aware of their 'crime' for a year or more. (I was actually told by a garda in the traffic division that it was a 3 month limit for them to issue the notification!)
2. WRT the point about "only the driver concerned is issued with this information at present", does this mean that Hibernian do not have access to the driver database?
3. <pedant mode>The driver's licence is not 'endorsed' with penalty points. - Fair enough, they are endorsed on your driving licence record according to the FAQ on garda.ie!

Bogger77

From what I recall, Hib. only have access to the database, if you allow them to. When completing your policy with them, you're asked about the points, if you leave blank, you're not given any discount.


I'm with Axa, and I haven't been asked about points at any stage when renewing my policy, I'll check with a friend there.

Bogger77

kbannon wrote:

3. <pedant mode>The driver's licence is not 'endorsed' with penalty points. - Fair enough, they are endorsed on your driving licence record according to the FAQ on garda.ie!

Endorsed means its wrote in big letters on the back of your license for everyone to see. Inc, employeers, car rental companies etc

On the record means it's just between you, the Dept of Env, the cops and god

magpie

You might like to discuss such operational/procedural matters with the Garda Siochana.

These fuc7ers can't resist a chance to try and intimidate you, can they?

As far as I can make out speeding fines are just a money making scam, and penalty points are the equivalent of the Boards rep system (RIP) and are dished out with equal fairness. What is the money from speeding fines used for?

I find the whole system whereby you can accept a ticket and take 2 points and an €80 fine, OR go to court and face up to €1500 / 3 months in chokey / 4 penalty points to also be deliberately intimidating. In other words: "You can pay up and get off relatively lightly, or you can try to protest your innocence according to the main tenet of our justice system which is 'innocent until proven guilty' in which case we will do everything in our power to fuc7 you up"

Like the man in Blade Runner said: "if you're not cops you're little people"

Seth Brundle

I know, was just badly worded. However, the mark is still there for anyone who insists on seeing it, e.g. employers, car rental companies, etc. (chances are that they wouldn't though!)

As an example, as far as insurance is concerned, the following is taken from the Ombudsmans site...

Any policyholder who has incurred penalty points should disclose this fact to his insurance company when applying for a policy of insurance or, in the case of an existing policy, at date of renewal. Furthermore in most motor insurance policies the policy wording will specifically extend the duty of disclosure so that it is continuous throughout the policy period. A typical policy wording extending the duty of disclosure would be as follows:
" Any facts known to you, and any changes affecting the risk since inception of the Policy or last renewal date (whichever is the later) must be disclosed to us. Failure to disclose such facts or changes may mean that your Policy will not provide you with the cover you require or may invalidate the Policy altogether."
It is sound common sense and in the proper spirit of the relationship of good faith between the insured and the insurance company for the insured to keep the insurer informed of any penalty points received during the course of the policy.
In relation to policy documentation, I would recommend that insurance companies modify application questions, renewal documents and policy wording to take into account penalty points and licence endorsements.

Bogger77

kbannon wrote:

I know, was just badly worded. However, the mark is still there for anyone who insists on seeing it, e.g. employers, car rental companies, etc. (chances are that they wouldn't though!)

It's not, as it's a confidential record, it can only be viewed by employers and others after a court order. I'm actually not sure, but in order to see your own record wouldn't you need to contact the Data Comissoners to request it?

Mezcita

kbannon wrote:

I emailed info@penaltypoints.ie with the same message I made in my original post above the other day and seemingly after the mail was forwarded several times I got this reply...


1. This means that the gardai and the DoE are allowed to take several years if they wish to notify the driver. There have been several reported instances of where a driver was not made aware of their 'crime' for a year or more. (I was actually told by a garda in the traffic division that it was a 3 month limit for them to issue the notification!)
2. WRT the point about "only the driver concerned is issued with this information at present", does this mean that Hibernian do not have access to the driver database?
3. <pedant mode>The driver's licence is not 'endorsed' with penalty points. - Fair enough, they are endorsed on your driving licence record according to the FAQ on garda.ie!

The whole thing is complete nonsense. Even the wording of the email to kbannon is decidedly vague about how long they have to prosecute you. I got done on the new Ashford by-pass recently. 67 in a 60. I was nice and polite at the start (it was a bird Garda, not bad really, five pints and you would definitely go there). But when I asked to see the gun she got a bit miffed. The gun showed 62. I pointed this out to her and asked for a receipt. She went mental PMT style, threatened to take the car off me as well as the usual "4 points if it goes to court, 1500 quid fine" Anyway, I did nothing about it and have not heard a thing since, which was three months ago.

Before everyone starts frothing at the mouth about speeding, I think that they should prosecute everyone they catch...... as long as they have a fair system in place to properly prosecute people. As long as they keep making mistakes and practically threatening 5 years in Mountjoy to everyone they catch doing 3mph above the speed limit, I for one will happily waste their time by contesting the fine. Bascially they attempt to put the fear of God into anyone who attempts to prove them wrong. It’s a money making scheme for them. They get given quotas for a day and sit there until they have hit them. God forbid they might actually post a few squad cars outside Johnny Foxes on a Saturday night with some breathalyzers.

Rant over. Feel better.

unkel

Mezcita wrote:

Rant over. Feel better.

Good. Not a bad rant altogether for a first post on boards.ie Welcome to the motoring forum

Our man in Havana

The Gardai must issue a summons within 6 months of the alleged offence. This is the limiting factor. This 3 month thing about notifing you would come from:

Jan 1: Offence committed
Apr 1: notice received by reg owner- 28 days to remember who was driving.
Apr 28: Reg owner says J. Bloggs was driving, sends off form (Reg owner has 28 days to snitch on J. Bloggs)
May 1: New notice to J. Bloggs
Jun 20 approx: deadline for J. Bloggs to cough up money ie 56 days from date of notice.
July 1: Summons must be issued

This assumes that all involved drag it out to the last. If the summons is a day late then its useless. If the Gardai took longer than 3 months you could safely nominate your wife etc and by the time they could re-issue against her the summons window would be nicely closed.

Boggle

magpie wrote:

I find the whole system whereby you can accept a ticket and take 2 points and an €80 fine, OR go to court and face up to €1500 / 3 months in chokey / 4 penalty points to also be deliberately intimidating. In other words: "You can pay up and get off relatively lightly, or you can try to protest your innocence according to the main tenet of our justice system which is 'innocent until proven guilty' in which case we will do everything in our power to fuc7 you up"

Typical of this govt that they'd stick something like this in there. As I've argued before this is blatantly wrong and I would bet the extra two points if ever I get caught that this part of the bill wouldn't survive a legal challenge.

lomb

didnt someone chalange it legally. surely it is illegal, it goes against all the principles of justice.

Boggle

no-ones had the balls to do it. I dont mind - just gives me a way out if I ever do get caught...

lomb

well be prepared to hire a barrister who charge 500euro an hour. my dad went to court and the judge didnt want to hear anything. they will only listen if u have representation.

Boggle

What did he say - what were the grounds for his defence?

lomb

beats me, all i heard on the radio was some guy is going to challenge (prob because he was going to lose his license over it) and they gave a date. the gist was it is against justiice to have a higher punishment if one seeks justice. so , 2 points and payup now and 4 points if u go to court isnt just.
i never heard what came of it.
i am certain though u would need someone representing u at court even if u want to put ur point across. a legal challenge would be in the highest court not some stupid speeding court.

seamus

Boggle wrote:

Typical of this govt that they'd stick something like this in there. As I've argued before this is blatantly wrong and I would bet the extra two points if ever I get caught that this part of the bill wouldn't survive a legal challenge.

The actual sentence for speeding is 4 penalty points. You get two if you plead guilty. That's essentially how it's run. Legally, the 2 points doesn't really exist. A judge can decide what sentence to give someone, up to a maximum, so as far as the law is concerned, the maximum penalty for speeding is 4 points. If you only get 2, you're lucky. So it couldn't really be argued that you are getting 2 *extra* points for trying to defend yourself, since there is no legislation saying that a speeding offence is 2 points. That is, however many points you receive up to a maximum of 4, is your sentence, like it or lump it. A bit like two guys convicted of murder - one guy get 10 years for pleading guilty, the other gets 15 years for not. The latter can't really say he was given 5 *extra* years for trying to defend himself.

The justice system needs to believe that it's almost infallible, to work. A man who pleads guilty is one who knows he is guilty, and therefore sometimes receives a lighter sentence for not wasting court time and state money. A man who doesn't plead guilty, should have his guilt proven, if he is guilty. In the eyes of the law, if the man is innocent, then he will not be found guilty. Therefore a person who is found guilty is logically one who knew he was guilty, but attempted to avoid his conviction, subsequently wasting court time and money, and is therefore liable for a more severe sentence.

It's not always right, but it's our justice system.

Slightly OT, but my uncle was up for speeding many years ago. There were loads of speeding cases being tried that day, and my uncle was towards the end. He noticed that anyone, when called, who tried to plead their case received a £200 fine, whereas anyone who was absent when called, received a £100 fine. So my uncle promptly kept schtum when called by the judge, and got a £100 fine for being absent.

Boggle

Hey seumas- its a matter of semantics really and its irrelevant how one writes it down as long as it means the same thing. While your argument that someone going to court may get a higher sentence than someone pleading guilty may be true, the point is that its not written in stone and the judge will sentence you based on the merits of your case - not on whether you tried to defend yourself.

In the case of speeding - it is written in stone: 2 if you take it and 4 if you dare defend yourself. What about where you dont believe you are guilty? Are you supposed to take the 2 for fear that if you can't prove yourself innocent that you may get double that punishment? Dont forget, the basis of our legal system is supposed to innocent until proven guilty - not the other way around...

seamus

Boggle wrote:

In the case of speeding - it is written in stone: 2 if you take it and 4 if you dare defend yourself. What about where you dont believe you are guilty? Are you supposed to take the 2 for fear that if you can't prove yourself innocent that you may get double that punishment? Dont forget, the basis of our legal system is supposed to innocent until proven guilty - not the other way around...

Exactly. And our justice system essentially believes that if you are innocent, you cannot be found guilty, therefore you should have no fear of taking it to court. In the justice system's eyes, it's 4 points for a guilty person who dares to take it to court. A person who is innocent will not (!) be found guilty. Even if you take it to court, the onus is essentially on the Gardai to prove that you were speeding. That's not to say you don't bring evidence for yourself. They should have a picture of your car speeding, that's their evidence. It's reasonable to assume that you were driving, since it's your car. So in the absence of any evidence on your part to the contrary, then you're guilty of speeding, beyond a reasonable doubt. In essence, if you cannot defend against the evidence presented, then it's reasonable to assume you're guilty, since a person who is innocent shouldn't have any problem debunking the prosecution's evidence.

Note that the logic behind it isn't always right, and I don't necessarily 100% agree with it, but that's the way it's worked for years

ambro25

Still very messy and not quite EU Human Rights Charter-compliant, arguments to the wisdom of saving court time/money notwithstanding...

At least, your system is simple(-ish ), so some should quit whining about the "I'll C U in Court, F*cker" VS "no-Court-thanks-and-don't-wrap-it-I'll-have-it-now" situation... Last time I got done in France (as in "seriously overcooked" done: 95 instead of 55 mph), I had to experience the "dual" system they have over there: administrative sanction PLUS court ruling (the court ruling superseding the administrative sanction).

The civil servants + cops panel (admin hearing panel that pronounces sanction) gave me 3 months suspension + €250 fine, 4 points. Judge gave me 1 month, €120 fine & 3 points - thanks Mr Justice - saved me 2 months of public transport, €130 & 1 point... Not that I didn't deserve the sanction or contested the facts, but the admin panel were so far up their a**ses (and so intent on making an example, probably) that they never let me open my mouth for any defense, in pure Gestapo-stylee - their faces when they had to give me my license back 2 months early! Priceless!

Boggle

Okay mate... here's an example for you to deal with and we can stuff the hypothetic. My ex 's father was on his way home from a football match one sunday when some lunatic came up behind him flashing and was promptly let off. A minute later he was pulled by a gard who claimed he was speeding and promptly gave him the ticket refusing to listen to any argument. He never contested the case for fear that the judge wouldn't believe him and would bouble his punishment. Should he have to fear trying to defend himself?

And to emphasise the point, my ex (his daughter) was a trainee gard at the time so he knew full well that the odds of defending himself were stacked. The gard cant prove he's lying - but because he cant prove he's innocent, the judge would probably find guilty... Point being he should be allowed to TRY defend himself without further punishment.

(And you never countered the main thrust of my last post - the doubling of the punishment)

seamus

Boggle wrote:

Okay mate... here's an example for you to deal with and we can stuff the hypothetic. My ex 's father was on his way home from a football match one sunday when some lunatic came up behind him flashing and was promptly let off. A minute later he was pulled by a gard who claimed he was speeding and promptly gave him the ticket refusing to listen to any argument. He never contested the case for fear that the judge wouldn't believe him and would bouble his punishment. Should he have to fear trying to defend himself?

There's no point in dealing in the specific. As I said, I don't always agree with the law, and yes, the law sometimes does get it wrong. I'm not defending it at all, I'm just outlining the position as I see it. No, people should not be afraid to defend themselves *if they're innocent*. The actual crux of this specific case is - was he actually speeding? The actions of the other motorist are irrelevant. If he was actually speeding, then no, there's no point in trying to defend himself.

(And you never countered the main thrust of my last post - the doubling of the punishment)

I already dealt with it. It's not a doubling of any punishment. The punishment for speeding is 4 penalty points. The sentence is halved if you plead guilty. In the eyes of the law, if you're not guilty, don't plead guilty.

edmund_f

do not think, in my humble opinion, that you have dealt with the 2 v's 4 points issue. It is true that the punishment is 4 points, and you get a discount (word seems suitable to use here) if you do not contest it. But this would just be an extension of the glass is half empty v's half full. If a shop sold you an item for EU4, but stated it gave a discount of EU2 for paying in cash, would you consider that a cash saving, or penalising someone paying by another method. Should there not be a fixed punishment without any of this 'reduction' rubbish clouding the issue. As far as i am concerned, it is 2 points for speeding, and you risk an increase of 2 if you try to contest it. (glass half full)

seamus

edmund_f wrote:

do not think, in my humble opinion, that you have dealt with the 2 v's 4 points issue. It is true that the punishment is 4 points, and you get a discount (word seems suitable to use here) if you do not contest it. But this would just be an extension of the glass is half empty v's half full. If a shop sold you an item for EU4, but stated it gave a discount of EU2 for paying in cash, would you consider that a cash saving, or penalising someone paying by another method.

Precisely, that's an excellent example. And a good question - is the law a pessimist or an optimist? Well it should be neither, I'd say. In my opinion, the above is a bonus for paying cash - the optimist's viewpoint.

Should there not be a fixed punishment without any of this 'reduction' rubbish clouding the issue. As far as i am concerned, it is 2 points for speeding, and you risk an increase of 2 if you try to contest it. (glass half full)

As for the law, well I'm far from being a law student. The way I see it, when someone is being asked at the start how they plead, that's essentially like a mother asking a child about a broken vase. The child who tells the truth (pleads guilty) will receive a reduced punishment than the child who lies. The child who is innocent won't be punished at all. (The difference in establishing guilt notwithstanding).

<pedant>Your viewpoint is the glass half-empty (pessimistic) one </pedant>

lomb

and what about the legal principal may 100 guilty speeders go free than one innocent speeder is convicted?

edmund_f

the only minor qualification to the vase example, is that the child is allowed to see the evidence. If you are caught speeding, the only way to see any of the evidence, except for a grainy photo, is to take them to court

see

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/

look up road traffic act 2002, section 21, all the evidence is 'prima facie' i.e. they are not obliged to prove any of it until you go to court

to continue the other metaphore, think there is a small hole in the glass?

magpie

essentially like a mother asking a child about a broken vase

What an excellent and succinct description of the nanny state we live in.