The notice in your hand, read properly

$230. That is the band the fee schedule prices as “more than 25 km an hour but not more than 30 km an hour”, and the fee does not move with your income, your history or whether it is your first time — the ladder is priced by how far over the limit the speed was recorded and by nothing else. At the bottom the ladder starts at $30, and at the top it reaches $630 before it stops entirely at 50 km/h over.

No — 0 points. The fee for that band is $230 and the points schedule would give 35 points for it, but reg 6(3)(b) does not allow points to be recorded for an offence detected by approved vehicle surveillance equipment at all. The identical offence detected by an enforcement officer records 35 points. Same speed, same fee, and the whole difference is how it was detected.

100 points in any 2-year period (s 90(1)). Below that, there is one intermediate step and it is a letter, not a consequence: at 50 points the Agency must warn you what happens if more are recorded (s 89(1)) — and not receiving that letter does not make a later suspension invalid (s 89(2)). The window is rolling, and the whole recorded set expires together rather than entry by entry, so a new offence moves the expiry date of everything already on the tally.

50 points, and that band has no upper bound at all — the points schedule’s top row reads “Speeding offence in which the speed limit fixed is exceeded by more than 35 km/h”. It keeps applying past the point where the FEE ladder has already run out at 50 km/h over. The two ladders come from different schedules with different boundaries, and one of them being closed tells you nothing about the other.

More than 40 km/h over a permanent speed limit, or more than 50 km/h over any other limit (s 95(1)(c)). The suspension runs for 28 days and it is imposed on the spot — a separate track from both the fee and the demerit points, and all three can follow one stop. It does not arise from a camera detection: s 95(1)(c) excludes both approved vehicle surveillance equipment and point-to-point average speed systems by name.

Check the notice — and the reason this site will not print a number is worth knowing. The Land Transport Act 1998 requires the notice itself to state the time you have to pay (s 140(1)(f)), but it does not fix that period anywhere: the general payment window is set outside the Act, in the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, which is not among this site’s sources. So the notice you were sent is the authority on your deadline, and a site quoting a day-count should be able to show you the provision it comes from.

No. Demerit points may only be recorded for an offence that concerns the driving of a motor vehicle “(other than an offence detected by approved vehicle surveillance equipment)” — reg 6(3)(b) of the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999. A speed camera is that equipment, so a camera-detected speeding offence carries the fee and no points. If an enforcement officer stopped you for the same speed, the points are recorded. That single difference is the most valuable thing on this site, and it is the thing most often stated wrongly elsewhere.

No, and this is worth being precise about. Nothing in the Land Transport Act 1998 or the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 sets a tolerance, a margin or an allowance on a speed reading — we searched both instruments for it and it is not there. What the Act provides instead is an evidentiary presumption: a certificate about the device and the reading is evidence of what it states (s 146). Enforcement practice is a different thing from a legal threshold, and no figure circulating online is the former dressed as the latter.

The infringement system stops. The fee schedule prices a fixed number of bands and simply ends — there is no further row and no larger fee in that scale at all. Above it the matter goes the ordinary conviction route instead, where the schedule states a flat maximum fine that is not scaled by how far over the limit you were. This site will not invent an amount for a band that does not exist, and a site that quotes one should be able to show you the row it came from.

They are the statute’s own two words, and which one applies turns on whether you hold a current licence, not on how serious the matter is. Where the threshold is reached and the person holds a licence, s 90(3) suspends it; where the person holds none, s 90(5) disqualifies them from holding or obtaining one, for the same period. Whether that makes any practical difference is not settled by the text, so this site asserts none.

No, and this is the step almost every summary leaves out. Section 90(3)(b) says the licence “remains of no effect when the period of suspension ends until the person applies to the Director to have the licence reinstated and the Director reinstates the licence.” There is a second act required, by you. The Act sets no deadline for making that application, which also means nothing happens automatically if you do not.

No. Section 89(2) says a suspension or disqualification is not invalid merely because the warning notice was not given, or was not received, or arrived late. The notice is a duty owed by the Agency; it is not a precondition of the consequence. This is one of the clearest cases on this site where the intuitive answer and the statutory one point in opposite directions.

No, and deliberately so. This site never asks for a driver licence number, a notice reference, a date of birth or a plate, and it renders no lookup form. It holds no records and has no connection to NZTA, NZ Police or any court. Your own record is held by NZTA, and the notice you were sent names who to contact about that particular matter.

For a gross excess of speed, yes — and it is a separate track from both the fee and the points. Sections 95 and 95A provide for an immediate suspension imposed by an enforcement officer, at the roadside, on the spot. It applies only where the speed was detected by a means other than a camera or a point-to-point average speed system: s 95(1)(c) names both of those methods together, in the same subclause, and excludes both.

Longer than most people expect, because the clock is not per-entry. Section 91(1) says the entry ceases to have effect two years after the offence — but where points were recorded for two or more offences, the whole entry ceases when two years have passed since the MOST RECENT of them. So a new offence inside the window does not just add points; it moves the expiry date of everything already recorded.

No. Section 88(3) says that where a person is convicted of two or more offences arising out of the same set of circumstances, points are recorded for one offence only — and where they carry different numbers, for the one carrying the greatest. The points are never summed. Where two equal-highest offences tie, the Act does not say which is picked, and this site does not invent a tie-break it does not state.