Car Accident - Penalty Points?

BoBo28 · 05-03-2014 2:10pm #1

Hi all,

Back story - I was reversing out of a space in a shopping centre car park. checked all my mirrors etc etc, nothing around so started moving out slowly. Car came out of nowhere and we had contact. Very minor damage on the left hand back bumper to my car, to his car - a good deal of damage (dents and scratches) on his passenger door, back door and above the back wheel panel (as if he had kept going even after first contact) The other driver rang the Gardai, they came along and both of us gave statements. I told the Gardai that the guy came out of nowhere (aka could have been speeding). Nobody was hurt but neither of us were taking responsibility. He told us both that it was up to the insurance companies now to sort it out and told us both to leave.

Now here's where I want to gauge opinions. Yesterday I received a citation for 2 penalty points and an €80 fine for "Driving without reasonable consideration". He had not said anything about this at the accident so it has come as a bit of a surprise. Is this common practice after an accident when both party's are taking it up with the insurance?

The guard had not witnessed the accident.

I don't know anyone else who this has happened to so just looking for some feedback.

Tea 1000 · 05-03-2014 2:13pm

BoBo28 wrote: »

Hi all,

Back story - I was reversing out of a space in a shopping centre car park. checked all my mirrors etc etc, nothing around so started moving out slowly. Car came out of nowhere and we had contact. Very minor damage on the left hand back bumper to my car, to his car - a good deal of damage (dents and scratches) on his passenger door, back door and above the back wheel panel (as if he had kept going even after first contact) The other driver rang the Gardai, they came along and both of us gave statements. I told the Gardai that the guy came out of nowhere (aka could have been speeding). Nobody was hurt but neither of us were taking responsibility. He told us both that it was up to the insurance companies now to sort it out and told us both to leave.

Now here's where I want to gauge opinions. Yesterday I received a citation for 2 penalty points and an €80 fine for "Driving without reasonable consideration". He had not said anything about this at the accident so it has come as a bit of a surprise. Is this common practice after an accident when both party's are taking it up with the insurance?

The guard had not witnessed the accident.

I don't know anyone else who this has happened to so just looking for some feedback.

I'd be fairly sure that yer man did actually come out of somewhere, but however...
If it was a private car park owned by the supermarket then you can't be done for driving without reasonable consideration. Where was it?

BoBo28 · 05-03-2014 2:17pm

You're right, he did come from somewhere, but very quickly - In that I didn't see him in time! (The crux of all accidents I guess!) It was in a Supervalu car park.

corktina · 05-03-2014 2:37pm

you can't get points in a super valu car park...not even Tesco Club Card points.

You should ask the Gard involved or the authorities what this ticket is for.

Kop On · 05-03-2014 2:38pm

Are you sure the penalty points are for the same incident?

Never heard of something like that happening before, plus there is absolutely no evidence that you were at fault for the accident.

I'd guess it's either a mistake or for an unrelated incident. Or perhaps the Garda meant to issue that to somebody else in his notepad and mistakenly entered your reg (from another page) into the system.

Riskymove · 05-03-2014 2:38pm

I cannot see how a Garda could give an on the spot fine for something he has not witnessed

after an investigation you could be charged but I am not sure about this approach

cml387 · 05-03-2014 2:39pm

You can be done for not having insurance in a car park.
A Tesco car park is a place where the public normally have access.
Don't know about driving offences, but the same may apply.

punisher5112 · 05-03-2014 2:42pm

Iv'e been in a number of collisions and never has anyone I know of recieved anything like that.

Are you sure the fine is for that and you maybe using a phone or such at some other stage?

Iv'e had a few in car and bus and nobody even when brought to court have received points or a fine.

Greenmachine · 05-03-2014 2:46pm

Citation should include date and time of the offense. Apart from including your name or anything else personal what does it say.

cml387 · 05-03-2014 2:46pm

As for the penalty points question, did not the OP damn himself from his own admission that he reversed out and didn't see the car coming?

There's a lot to be said for not admitting ANYTHING at an accident.

BoBo28 · 05-03-2014 2:53pm

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

Just to clarify, it wasn't even an "on the spot fine" He said nothing about it. I just received it in the post. I'm inclined to think it wasn't a mistake as it has all of my details, correct car reg, time of incident etc. No other incidents except this one, insurance up to date.

The accusation is for "Driving without reasonable consideration" - Quite baffled now...

bmstuff · 05-03-2014 2:54pm

My personal opinion is that you do not have priority anyway, reversing into a main road, car park or else, even if cars are speeding on the main road. You have to wait for the traffic to clear. Now it is highly unfortunate and the fine might be argued, but I believe if his speed was excessive the damage would have been much worse. Even at 50kmh there is a good chance the car would have been totalled. I do not consider scratches and a few dents as being a sign of high speed impact.
Probably where the fine came from.
I know where you are coming and it may be feel unfair but the fine is probably strickly based on a basic rule of driving and only a few seconds of inattention is enough.
Not defenfing anyone nor blaming you either just sharing my opinion on what I think happened
Good luck

ironclaw · 05-03-2014 2:59pm

bmstuff wrote: »

My personal opinion is that you do not have priority anyway, reversing into a main road, car park or else, even if cars are speeding on the main road. You have to wait for the traffic to clear. Now it is highly unfortunate and the fine might be argued, but I believe if his speed was excessive the damage would have been much worse. Even at 50kmh there is a good chance the car would have been totalled. I do not consider scratches and a few dents as being a sign of high speed impact.

You could argue the flip side that a driver in a car park (Who would have far greater visibility) has a duty of car to proceed at a speed that is applicable to the situation i.e. stopping in a hurry should a car pull out of a space, an event that is highly probable given the location.

I'd consider anyone doing a decent rate of knots in a car park where they couldn't stop for a car pulling out to be driving 'without reasonable car and attention'

OP, the letter will have a date, time and location of the offence. Check its the same as the car park. And of course, drop down and speak with the officer you were dealing with. It could be (Most likely) a clerical error.

BoBo28 · 05-03-2014 3:07pm

ironclaw wrote: »

You could argue the flip side that a driver in a car park (Who would have far greater visibility) has a duty of car to proceed at a speed that is applicable to the situation i.e. stopping in a hurry should a car pull out of a space, an event that is highly probable given the location.

I'd consider anyone doing a decent rate of knots in a car park where they couldn't stop for a car pulling out to be driving 'without reasonable car and attention'

OP, the letter will have a date, time and location of the offence. Check its the same as the car park. And of course, drop down and speak with the officer you were dealing with. It could be (Most likely) a clerical error.

Thanks for that. All of the details are correct - correct car park, time, date, name etc. I'm starting to think it was just his opinion. Very bizarre though, especially as no one was excepting liability and it was going to the insurance. I'll give the station a ring and try and get some clarification.

Mikros · 05-03-2014 3:12pm

corktina wrote: »

you can't get points in a super valu car park...not even Tesco Club Card points.

That's not true. Even though it is private property a carpark like that would almost certainly be considered a public place under the Road Traffic Act and all relevant offenses and penalties would apply.

We weren't there, and we only have your side of the story to go on, but if you reversed out into the path of another car you will likely be found at fault - obviously the guard felt you drove without due care and consideration and hence the fixed charge notice. You can accept it and pay or explain it to a judge - pretty much your options.

BoBo28 · 05-03-2014 3:17pm

Mikros wrote: »

That's not true. Even though it is private property a carpark like that would almost certainly be considered a public place under the Road Traffic Act and all relevant offenses and penalties would apply.

We weren't there, and we only have your side of the story to go on, but if you reversed out into the path of another car you will likely be found at fault - obviously the guard felt you drove without due care and consideration and hence the fixed charge notice. You can accept it and pay or explain it to a judge - pretty much your options.

I hear ya and that may well be the case. I (of course) happen to think I wasn't in the wrong but that's a matter for the insurance but even if I WAS in the wrong is it ok for the Gardai to do that? Even without witnessing the incident?

cruizer101 · 05-03-2014 3:22pm

I find that very strange that you are getting points for it surely if the guard can't offer up an opinion with regards to the insurance he can't decide that you were liable in terms of getting points. I'd definitely be on to him to ask about it. I' d be tempted to go to court also although that does carry much higher risks with it.

Just throwing it out there as an idea, I wonder could he have given you both fines and points for whatever reason.

Might be an idea to ask in the emergency services forum about guard giving points even though didn't witness incident, leaving liability out of it completely.

Tea 1000 · 05-03-2014 3:25pm

Mikros wrote: »

That's not true. Even though it is private property a carpark like that would almost certainly be considered a public place under the Road Traffic Act and all relevant offenses and penalties would apply.

Not correct. I know of cases where a drink driving offense got thrown out of court because the gard stopped the offender in an Industrial Estate, which is private property.

PrettyBoy · 05-03-2014 3:32pm

First of all OP - stop saying "he came out of nowhere, you're in the right, it's not your fault, etc" - from what you've told us you're at fault here, partly at least.

Contact the guard that you gave the statement to and ask for an explanation on how he can give points an accident that he didn't witness which occured on private property.

Mikros · 05-03-2014 3:32pm

BoBo28 wrote: »

I hear ya and that may well be the case. I (of course) happen to think I wasn't in the wrong but that's a matter for the insurance but even if I WAS in the wrong is it ok for the Gardai to do that? Even without witnessing the incident?

Yeah, there is no requirement for the Guard to witness an actual incident. They still have to prove it if it goes to court. But the fact a collision happened *could* be evidence that someone was driving without care. Liability wise you are most likely in the wrong - the other car had right of way and you reversed into his path. From the sounds of it he might have been in a blind spot and you reversed straight out on top of him. The first point of damage to his passenger door would suggest he was almost level with you when you reversed out, as opposed to damage to the front of his car if he was speeding and couldn't stop. These are the sort of things the guard would have looked at when at the scene.

Mikros · 05-03-2014 3:38pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Not correct. I know of cases where a drink driving offense got thrown out of court because the gard stopped the offender in an Industrial Estate, which is private property.

It's nothing to do with private property - it's whether it was a public place.

“public place” means any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge;

An industrial estate *might* not be a public place for example as the public have no right of access - was there a barrier for example? That is not the case for most supermarket car parks where the public (in general) do have a right of access. There is a huge amount of case law in the area, and it all comes down to the specifics of each case.

BoBo28 · 05-03-2014 3:42pm

Mikros wrote: »

Yeah, there is no requirement for the Guard to witness an actual incident. They still have to prove it if it goes to court. But the fact a collision happened *could* be evidence that someone was driving without care. Liability wise you are most likely in the wrong - the other car had right of way and you reversed into his path. From the sounds of it he might have been in a blind spot and you reversed straight out on top of him. The first point of damage to his passenger door would suggest he was almost level with you when you reversed out, as opposed to damage to the front of his car if he was speeding and couldn't stop. These are the sort of things the guard would have looked at when at the scene.

The damage to my car is only the back left lower corner of the bumper. Which I would argue, shows that he was speeding as the damage continues across his left side from front to back (didn't stop at point of impact) - again, it is just my side you're hearing so do understand the counter argument. My main point is in any accident where the driver is or isn't in the wrong, have they experienced the guard making his own conclusion, even when the insurance haven't??

Thanks to all for your opinions, it does help to hear the good and the bad! Is there anyone who has experienced something similar?

cml387 · 05-03-2014 3:47pm

You have the option of going to court and arguing your case, remember that.The fine and penalty points only apply if you agree to accept them.

UncleChael · 05-03-2014 3:50pm

That doesn't sound right at all OP, i'd let that one go to court if I were you.

dilallio · 05-03-2014 3:52pm

Did the Garda ask you to sign a statement as to your interpretation of what happened?

I find it strange that you would get a notification like this unless you incriminated yourself in a statement to the Garda.

Even then, you could easily explain to a judge that you were in-shock after the accident and didn't mean to say that.

The downside though, is if you go to court, you will lose wages.

homewardbound11 · 05-03-2014 3:53pm

We are all giving opinions so my opinion would be.
If a car were to get scratched from front to rear in a car park because someone reversed out on to it. Then I would ( if I were the guard) give penalty points to both for driving without care. To get a car damaged for over 15 feet without stopping the vehicle is lack of due care . Your insurance will pay for the damage to your car.
A mean guard though. Somebody's got to pay their pensions when they retire at 55.

Mikros · 05-03-2014 3:55pm

BoBo28 wrote: »

The damage to my car is only the back left lower corner of the bumper. Which I would argue, shows that he was speeding as the damage continues across his left side from front to back (didn't stop at point of impact) - again, it is just my side you're hearing so do understand the counter argument. My main point is in any accident where the driver is or isn't in the wrong, have they experienced the guard making his own conclusion, even when the insurance haven't??

The guard is only concerned with the criminal / Road Traffic Act side - the civil side the insurance companies deal with themselves. They are related, but separate at the same time.

The offence was driving without consideration - can only presume that's what guard felt you were doing at the time. That doesn't mean the liability for the collision is 100% yours, or 100% the other person, or some split - the insurance companies will work that out.

BoBo28 · 05-03-2014 4:14pm

dilallio wrote: »

Did the Garda ask you to sign a statement as to your interpretation of what happened?

I find it strange that you would get a notification like this unless you incriminated yourself in a statement to the Garda.

Even then, you could easily explain to a judge that you were in-shock after the accident and didn't mean to say that.

The downside though, is if you go to court, you will lose wages.

No he didn't ask for me to sign a statement or anything like that, he didn't give much of an opinion one way or the other either. No verbal citation, just a present in the letterbox of a written one!

BoBo28 · 05-03-2014 4:17pm

homewardbound11 wrote: »

We are all giving opinions so my opinion would be.
If a car were to get scratched from front to rear in a car park because someone reversed out on to it. Then I would ( if I were the guard) give penalty points to both for driving without care. To get a car damaged for over 15 feet without stopping the vehicle is lack of due care . Your insurance will pay for the damage to your car.
A mean guard though. Somebody's got to pay their pensions when they retire at 55.

The damage is so minor to mine, I'm not even looking for anything to be done with it! I think you may be right... He may well be a just a meanie...

Greenmachine · 05-03-2014 4:20pm

BoBo28 wrote: »

The damage is so minor to mine, I'm not even looking for anything to be done with it! I think you may be right... He may well be a just a meanie...

You say that but still think the other party was at fault. Is it possible that you are at least partially at fault.

BoBo28 · 05-03-2014 4:28pm

Greenmachine wrote: »

You say that but still think the other party was at fault. Is it possible that you are at least partially at fault.

I can't say either which way. I was in the accident, not a witness to it. All I can say is what happened from my point of view.

ProudDUB · 05-03-2014 4:36pm

Have you contacted SuperValu to see if they have CCTV footage of the incident? That is the best way to judge whether or not the car was going at an excessive speed for a car park.

Even if he was, he still had the right of way. You reversed out into his path. I am having a hard time seeing how you could get out of this, unless you show up in court with a tape of him speeding.

CiniO · 05-03-2014 4:38pm

punisher5112 wrote: »

Iv'e been in a number of collisions and never has anyone I know of recieved anything like that.

In most EU countries issuing a fine and penalty points for causing a collision is pretty much standard.
Maybe just Irish motoring goes in good direction towards normality

tin79 · 05-03-2014 4:42pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Not correct. I know of cases where a drink driving offense got thrown out of court because the gard stopped the offender in an Industrial Estate, which is private property.

A public car park in a public shopping centre is not private property. Its open to the public and so is a public place for the purposes of the road traffic act. A gated estate with security would be a different situation.

tin79 · 05-03-2014 4:47pm

BoBo28 wrote: »

The damage to my car is only the back left lower corner of the bumper. Which I would argue, shows that he was speeding as the damage continues across his left side from front to back (didn't stop at point of impact) - again, it is just my side you're hearing so do understand the counter argument. My main point is in any accident where the driver is or isn't in the wrong, have they experienced the guard making his own conclusion, even when the insurance haven't??

Thanks to all for your opinions, it does help to hear the good and the bad! Is there anyone who has experienced something similar?

I think you could go to court but if you admitted reversing out and not seeing a car coming, regardless of what speed he was doing, you may have hung yourself. Could depend on the judges mood.

But your argument hat he must have been speeding because of where the damage is makes no sense. That's just down to point of impact. If you scrape a wall at 1 km/h you will get scratches along your car so really it proves nothing that he has scrapes along the side. Maybe if he flipped the car and rolled over 3 times you might have a point but you are grasping at straws in what you said, IMO.

slimjimmc · 05-03-2014 5:56pm

tin79 wrote: »

A public car park in a public shopping centre is not private property. Its open to the public and so is a public place for the purposes of the road traffic act. A gated estate with security would be a different situation.

If it's owned by a private person or business (not a local/state authority) it is private property regardless of whether it is a public place or not.

OP, much of traffic law does apply to shopping centre car parks by virtue of it being a public place.
Road Traffic Act

Careless driving.

52.—(1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the place.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

bmstuff · 05-03-2014 6:36pm

ironclaw wrote: »

You could argue the flip side that a driver in a car park (Who would have far greater visibility) has a duty of car to proceed at a speed that is applicable to the situation i.e. stopping in a hurry should a car pull out of a space, an event that is highly probable given the location.

I'd consider anyone doing a decent rate of knots in a car park where they couldn't stop for a car pulling out to be driving 'without reasonable car and attention'

OP, the letter will have a date, time and location of the offence. Check its the same as the car park. And of course, drop down and speak with the officer you were dealing with. It could be (Most likely) a clerical error.

In my book there is nothing to argue. You have right of way or not. You run through a red light someone hit you, according to you, the one that hit you could be responsible because he was not driving with due care? No. Let's be serious.

slimjimmc · 05-03-2014 6:39pm

OP, you stated you checked your mirrors, etc, saw nothing and started to move. But did you continue to do that as you reversed, or did you just come out on the assumption your path was going to stay clear. The latter would likely result in a careless driving charge.

If you kept looking around the other car shouldn't have surprised you so. If visibility is poor it's a good idea to reverse out by only inching out a little, stop and double check before inching out a little bit more, and repeating until safely out.

con___manx1 · 05-03-2014 6:41pm

BoBo28 wrote: »

You're right, he did come from somewhere, but very quickly - In that I didn't see him in time! (The crux of all accidents I guess!) It was in a Supervalu car park.

The accident is probably on CCTV. If in a supermarket car park. There is no denying whose fault it is if u could get your hand on the footage.

BoBo28 · 05-03-2014 8:45pm

Thanks Guys, going to go in and ask for the CCTV. I was able to make an appointment to meet the guard tomorrow so hopefully can clear it up, good bad or indifferent. All views very much appreciated!

ProudDUB · 05-03-2014 9:22pm

Don't be surprised if they aren't willing to help you out, unless it is a formal request from the Guards or an insurance company. There was another similar thread on here not too long ago & the supermarket/shopping centre would not give out CCTV footage to people who just walk in and ask for it.

Turner · 05-03-2014 9:34pm

If the other driver called the Gardai for a material damage accident (one where the Gardai do not normally investigate) the other driver must have alleged your driving was without due care and attention.

The Garda would issue the ticket on that complaint, if you chose to fight it in court the other driver would be the witness, not the Garda.

The Garda would only be present to give evidence of issuing the ticket on receipt of a complaint.

Its like reporting somebody for dangerous driving to traffic watch. You would be asked to make a statement and would be summonsed to court as a witness to prosecute the dangerous driver. After all the Garda didnt witness the driving.

I would ring the Garda who issued the ticket and he will explain why he issued it but i would guess it would be as above.

slimjimmc · 05-03-2014 9:52pm

ProudDUB wrote: »

Don't be surprised if they aren't willing to help you out, unless it is a formal request from the Guards or an insurance company. There was another similar thread on here not too long ago & the supermarket/shopping centre would not give out CCTV footage to people who just walk in and ask for it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Garda had already viewed CCTV evidence and that led to the OP being charged, and/or he could have taken statements from witnesses.

franksm · 06-03-2014 8:37am

This relates to CCTV and access to *your* images:

http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Data-Protection--CCTV/242.htm

"Any person whose image is recorded on a CCTV system has a right to seek and be supplied with a copy of their own personal data from the footage. To exercise that right, a person must make an application in writing. The data controller may charge up to €6.35 for responding to such a request and must respond within 40 days."

djimi · 06-03-2014 9:28am

Turner wrote: »

If the other driver called the Gardai for a material damage accident (one where the Gardai do not normally investigate) the other driver must have alleged your driving was without due care and attention.

The Garda would issue the ticket on that complaint, if you chose to fight it in court the other driver would be the witness, not the Garda.

The Garda would only be present to give evidence of issuing the ticket on receipt of a complaint.

Its like reporting somebody for dangerous driving to traffic watch. You would be asked to make a statement and would be summonsed to court as a witness to prosecute the dangerous driver. After all the Garda didnt witness the driving.

I would ring the Garda who issued the ticket and he will explain why he issued it but i would guess it would be as above.

Surely there is no way that this could hold up in court, considering the other party is most likely not going to be a reliable judge of what was dangerous driving?

"Yes your honour, the maniac tore out of the space without looking and nearly killed me and my two kids on the back seat" is a very convenient way of covering up the truth of "I was flying around a car park at top speed and was not able to stop in time to avoid hitting the person who was taking care when leaving their space". When it boils down to one parties word against the other, either account could be true, and without CCTV or an independent witness it is not easy to determine which to believe.

tin79 · 06-03-2014 9:46am

slimjimmc wrote: »

If it's owned by a private person or business (not a local/state authority) it is private property regardless of whether it is a public place or not.

OP, much of traffic law does apply to shopping centre car parks by virtue of it being a public place.
Road Traffic Act

I don't think its private property in terms of road traffic offences though. Ok its privately owned but publicly accessible so traffic laws apply.

tin79 · 06-03-2014 9:51am

djimi wrote: »

Surely there is no way that this could hold up in court, considering the other party is most likely not going to be a reliable judge of what was dangerous driving?

"Yes your honour, the maniac tore out of the space without looking and nearly killed me and my two kids on the back seat" is a very convenient way of covering up the truth of "I was flying around a car park at top speed and was not able to stop in time to avoid hitting the person who was taking care when leaving their space". When it boils down to one parties word against the other, either account could be true, and without CCTV or an independent witness it is not easy to determine which to believe.

You could make the same argument for any victim acting as a witness in any case for any crime though. It doesn't mean their testimony is not valid just because they were the injured party. The OP admitted reversing out where they had no right of way and not seeing the car that did have right of way. That might be enough on its own.

djimi · 06-03-2014 10:06am

tin79 wrote: »

You could make the same argument for any victim acting as a witness in any case for any crime though. It doesn't mean their testimony is not valid just because they were the injured party. The OP admitted reversing out where they had no right of way and not seeing the car that did have right of way. That might be enough on its own.

Its not quite the same as a lot of crimes though; saying that someone was driving dangerously is a lot more subjective than someone witnessing somebody breaking into a car or a crime of that nature. Especially in this case where the other party has something to gain from making the OP look worse, as its entirely possible that their own driving was a major contributor to the incident.

Right of way only gets you so far; there are times where with the best will in the world, the person pulling out of the space is relying on the person who has right of way to be doing their bit to avoid an incident. This is quite often the case in car parks, where if you have someone flying around the car park at a speed where they have little room for reaction then there is every chance that they will have a coming together with a car who is pulling out of a space, even if that driver is being as careful as they can be. I have seen it happen many times, where I have been lucky to avoid some idiot who is driving around like they think they are on a go kart track.

slimjimmc · 06-03-2014 10:10am

tin79 wrote: »

I don't think its private property in terms of road traffic offences though. Ok its privately owned but publicly accessible so traffic laws apply.

Ah, ok I see what you mean when you say "private property" in this context, you mean a place where the public have no access as opposed to a public place.
I wonder if "private place" (opposition of "public place") would be a better descriptor for such places which are non-public places.:)

BigEejit · 06-03-2014 10:11am

Years ago I was stopped in a carpark waiting for someone to reverse out of a space further down the road when a woman reversed out of a spot into me. Luckily she had a tow hitch and it hit my tyre!
She had literally jumped in her car, checked her mirrors, then fixed her hair and did a load of other faffing around before reversing out WITHOUT checking her mirrors again. I was in a Carina e so would have been visible in every mirror!

tin79 · 06-03-2014 10:24am

slimjimmc wrote: »

Ah, ok I see what you mean when you say "private property" in this context, you mean a place where the public have no access as opposed to a public place.
I wonder if "private place" (opposition of "public place") would be a better descriptor for such places which are non-public places.:)

Sorry, yes should have been clearer on that one.

Car Accident - Penalty Points?

Comments