I was driving my French van around London, minding my own business and got flashed by a ULEZ camera, designed to catch people driving vehicles that don't meet desired exhaust emission standards. Four months later I received a fine through the post. It was exorbitant, more than €3,000.
The enclosed letter explained that I could reduce the amount if I emailed a copy of my French vehicle document, which has its age and specification. Then they would know the correct fine to be levied.
In other words, they didn't know enough about my vehicle to charge the correct fine, so instead they charged me at the highest rate to encourage me to send my details.
It's the equivalent of you owing me money, but I'm not sure how much so I'll just claim a lot to get your attention and encourage you to pay up something.
But things don't work like that.
I refused to send any documentation. If they didn't already have access to my van's specification info, they could hardly expect me to send it to them. There was a bit of argy-bargy back and forth, they claiming I was legally obliged to send information when requested, me claiming that one of the principles of English and European law is the right not to incriminate myself. I asked them to take me to court. So they sent me to the London Tribunal, which said it was nonsense - they dismissed the case and withdrew the fine.
So what's happening here? The law is the law and it sets the rules we have to obey. If I get caught on a camera speeding then I get sent the evidence and a fine, which is a prescribed amount. I can either accept the evidence and pay up or contest it, in which case I'll go to court where they have to prove their case against me. I might offer mitigating circumstances (my wife was giving birth etc) but I don't have to defend myself. After due consideration the judge will decide if I'm guily or not and the punishment I must endure. Most people pay up without going to court, because court is expensive, time consuming and scary.
The bottom line is that if someone believes they have a claim against you, you can (and should) ask them to prove it. You don't have to do something just because someone else says you must, unless they wear an outrageous wig and you have to stand up when they enter the room. Come to think of it, that discribes my geography master!
Another often misunderstood role is that of the solicitor. A solicitor is not the law, or a judge - and whilst they may be trained to interpret the law, they have no more power than you or me to enforce it. They are there to advise us about the law.
Sometimes it's handy to remember that.
コメント