What your letter looks like

[YOUR FULL NAME]
[YOUR ADDRESS]
[YOUR EMAIL] · [YOUR PHONE]

[DATE]

The Police Adjudicator
Police Infringement Bureau
PO Box 9147, Wellington 6141

RE: WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS — EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT (62 KM/H IN A 50 KM/H AREA), 20 DEMERIT POINTS
Notice Number: S1234567 | Date of Alleged Offence: 14 June 2026 | Officer: ABC123

Dear Adjudicator,

I deny liability for the above infringement notice and request that it be reviewed and withdrawn, expressly reserving my right to request a court hearing under section 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. My grounds are set out below; each independently raises doubt about the reliability of this notice.

GROUND 1: NO VALID TRACKING HISTORY COULD HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED

The NZ Police Speed Detection Equipment Operators Manual requires that a tracking history be established for every speed check, comprising three elements — visual observation, audio confirmation, and verification by the speed detector: "To eliminate errors effectively, all three elements must be present for each speed check." The officer was positioned in a side street approximately 80 metres before the location stated on the notice, in moving traffic, without sustained line of sight to my vehicle on approach. In those conditions the required visual assessment could not have been formed before the reading was taken. I put Police to proof that a compliant tracking history was established.

GROUND 2: MULTIPLE VEHICLES WITHIN THE BEAM

At the time of the alleged offence I was travelling in a line of traffic, with a larger vehicle immediately ahead. The Manual provides that where more than one vehicle is in the beam, enforcement requires evidence excluding the other vehicles. [CONFIRM: describe the surrounding traffic as you remember it.] I put Police to proof that the reading relied on is attributable to my vehicle and not another.

GROUND 3: IN THE ALTERNATIVE — WAIVER UNDER POLICE POLICY

Without admitting liability, I note that I have held a clean driving record for more than two years. Police waiver practice allows a one-off waiver of a minor infringement in exactly these circumstances, and I formally request that the notice be waived on this basis should the grounds above not already resolve it.

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE — OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

So that these representations can be assessed fairly, I request the following information:
1. The officer's Certificate of Proficiency for the specific device used;
2. The device's Certificate of Accuracy and most recent calibration record;
3. The officer's complete notes for this stop, including the tracking history;
4. The device data log for the relevant period, with timestamps;
5. Confirmation of the distance between the enforcement position and the nearest speed limit change.

If any of these records were not created or cannot be produced, I ask that the notice be withdrawn accordingly.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above the notice should be withdrawn. If the matter cannot be resolved through these representations, I intend to request a court hearing and will seek full discovery of the documents listed. I request a response in writing within 28 days.

Yours faithfully,

_____________________
[YOUR FULL NAME]
Date: [DATE]