Re: Speed camera question
- From: Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:18:52 +0000
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:51:36 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
<alan.holmes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> I don't see why 35 quid is unreasonable. That pays for maybe an hour's
>> clerical/supervisor time. Remember that wages are only a fairly small
>> part of what it costs to employ somebody.
>
>And if the case is not proved?
>
>Does the driver still have to pay the 'fine' imposed by the hire company?
>
Yes.
It isn't a fine.
It is an "administrative charge" for processing the police request
regarding who was driving at the time.
If they presented it as a "fine" or "penalty", then presumably you
*would* only have to pay it if you had committed the alleged offence.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It is better to be brief than boring.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.
- References:
- Speed camera question
- From: Andy
- Re: Speed camera question
- From: Cynic
- Re: Speed camera question
- From: Andy
- Re: Speed camera question
- From: The Electric Fan Club
- Re: Speed camera question
- From: GB
- Re: Speed camera question
- From: Rob
- Re: Speed camera question
- From: GB
- Re: Speed camera question
- From: Alan Holmes
- Speed camera question
- Prev by Date: Re: Police chief admits Menezes mistakes
- Previous by thread: Re: Speed camera question
- Next by thread: Re: Speed camera question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|