Acceptable reasoning for failing to identify driver for S172? Options

[Dev]

Does anyone know whether there is currently any acceptable reason for not being able to provide driver details in response to a NIP, which would not result in a prosecution for failing to comply with S172 (other than the vehicle having been reported stolen, in which case there should be documentary evidence in the form of a crime report reference)?

[Advertisement]

[Stoofa]

Yes. After completing full due-diligence, asking all of the people who could have been driving your vehicle at the time, checking receipts for things like petrol, thinking back to the journey you were making - thinking about the route taken, when exactly you were flashed and who was driving at the time.
Then, having asked for photographs to "assist in the identification of the driver" you are still unable to decide who was driving, then you can tell the court that you are unable to identify the driver.

All you have to do is then convince the magistrates that this is truly the case - that identification of the driver is not possible.
But the bottom line is, if you cannot identify the driver, then this would be acceptable reason for failing on the S172 - however the result is highly unlikely to be "OK, well thanks for trying - off you all go, no points of fines for anyone".

[Jlc]

Yes. <snip>

But did you answer the question?

...which would not result in a prosecution for failing to comply with S172

Most circumstances would go to court to decide.

Is this in relation to an active case?

[Logician]

If you are the registered keeper then the police are likely to decide to prosecute and see if the court will accept your reasons for being unable to nominate the driver.

It might be better if you told us what the circumstances are if this is an active case, lest anyone should suggest you are "adapting" your circumstances to suit, if this is a hypothetical question it belongs in the flame pit.

[The Rookie]

Yes. After completing full due-diligence,

Funny as the statute says reasonable dilligence, I'm also intrigued at the difference between due and full due dilligence?

[Dev]

If you are the registered keeper then the police are likely to decide to prosecute and see if the court will accept your reasons for being unable to nominate the driver.

It might be better if you told us what the circumstances are if this is an active case, lest anyone should suggest you are "adapting" your circumstances to suit, if this is a hypothetical question it belongs in the flame pit.

It is a hypothetical question to some degree on my part as I'm seeking clarification on behalf of someone else who claims to be in this predicament.

It's a colleague who got back from holiday to find a NIP addressed to him for the alledged offence of 37 in a 30 (don't know the details but somewhere in Surrey near where he lives). He claims that he doesn't know if it was him or his wife driving the car at the time as they apparently both drove the car down the same stretch of road where the fixed camera was within half an hour of each other around the time of the alledged offence but can't remember or work out exact timings etc.

I suggested requesting to see the photo but he's already got it and said it just shows he back of the car from a distance so impossible to determine who was driving. Apparently you can log onto a website now and type in a PIN that you're provided with to obtain photos and other details about the offence.

He was planning to send the NIP back declaring his own details as his wife risks getting the points if she receives the COFP because she did a speed awareness course quite recently. I told him to hold fire though as he's potentially committing an offence if he declares himself as being guilty without being certain it was definitely him driving.

I actually have first hand experience of this in similar circumstances about 12 years ago and managed to avoid a COFP and prosecution when I received a NIP. In my case I had been sharing a hire car with a colleague whilst away on business. The car had been rented by my then company secretary in my name but the other colleague had been added to the rental as an additional named driver so was also covered to drive the hire car. As such the NIP eventually found its way to me via the hire car company about 2 months after the alledged offence.

I wrote a couple of letters to the police (Thames Valley) first requesting the photo to aid the identification of the driver (it didn't as it was a photo of the back of the car taken from a mobile enforcement unit from a distance of at least 200 yards) and then a follow up to cla that after applying reasonable due diligence it was not possible to ascertain which of us (I provided mine and my colleagues details) was driving the car on the day of the offence given that it had taken place 2 months ago and we had not been required by our company to keep a log of who was driving the hire Each day. Thames Valley wrote back and agreed to take no further action but made it clear that they would nott make such an exception again.

That was 12 years ago and I'm pretty sure the legislation has been tightened surrounding S172 and driver identification in order to prevent such circumstances from working to the registered keepers advantage.

[BaggieBoy]

He was planning to send the NIP back declaring his own details as his wife risks getting the points if she receives the COFP because she did a speed awareness course quite recently. I told him to hold fire though as he's potentially committing an offence if he declares himself as being guilty without being certain it was definitely him driving.

Not being absolutely certain is not generally a problem, naming the most likely driver is perfectly acceptable. However what isn't acceptable is choosing someone because it is more convenient.

[southpaw82]

The legislation hasn't changed at all. Your friend's options are to name the (most likely) driver or face the real prospect of going to court with a six point prize for losing.