Last summer, I let a family friend use my company van. The Ltd Company is the registered keeper of the vehicle, rather than me personally.

They were unaware of the lower speed limits for larger vans, and managed to get caught on a mobile camera doing a little over 70mph. The road is a national speed limit dual carriageway and a van the size of ours is restricted to 60mph.

The company received the usual letter and after requesting photographs, named the family friend as the driver. I'd expected that this would be the end of the matter.

Our premises were visited yesterday by two policemen. They brought the same photos and paperwork as I had received in the post before. They said that they hadn't been able to get in touch with the named driver, he had requested photographs himself and done nothing more. The strong implication was that I should get in touch with him myself and encourage him to respond. The driver has a solid home address, where he has lived for several decades, should be very easy for them to verify. It's not like I gave them false details or he lives in a squat or student bedsit.

Their parting shot was that theoretically the company could still be charged for failing to provide details. This sounds fishy to me - I thought I had discharged my legal obligation by naming him in the first place. Not sure if further action can be taken against the company - or surely our defence would be that we had, indeed, named the driver and the police paperwork says so?


Edit to add: this is all taking place in Scotland, not sure if any of the laws are different here from south of the border.

Just to be clear - the nominated driver requested photo's and has now gone quiet?

Companies can be prosecuted for the offence but points are not awarded.

if the company as the RK (via its human agent) has responded correctly and fully to the s.172 request to name the driver and the police have received an acted on that response then the RK has fulfilled its legal obligation (as have the director or other officer) and the executive have no further recourse to action or litigation. There is no need for a defence as any charge would be entirely unfounded (on the facts reported).

In this case and on the facts reported it seems the BiB were talking from their trousers. Again.

Yes. The police say they went to his house, nobody was in so they left a card, but he hasn't phoned them back.

The police regularly prosecute on basis that the person you (or the company) named has not responded, or they simply don't believe you gave the correct details.

The defence would be that the information was given. The police/prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't - i.e. that the person named was not the driver at the time of the alleged offence. They often get this burden wrong at court and will suggest you have to prove that you gavce the corerct details - WRONG!

Be careful because the company being the RK is not an absolute protection against the risk of 6 points. s.5.RTA88 states that if the failure is down the neglect or connivance of an individual within the company they can get points.

I could see that becoming a problem if I had given the police a list of possible drivers, or just made some details up, but surely when I've given correct, verifiable details it would be hard to argue that there's been "neglect or connivance"?

Correct, MsD is just making sure you have all the facts.

It appears here the the BiB are asking you to do their job for them, although as he is a 'family friend' I would suggest that gioving him a call and asking what the F he is playing at would be a normal reaction.

Just covering all angles, was the driver insured to drive the van?

Yes, the policy allows anyone over 25 to drive so we're fine on that front.



I haven't discussed it since the police visited, but from a conversation we had around the time I gave the details it seemed like he was hoping the offence would "time out". From the current police response it seems unlikely that they'll let it lie.

(The date of the ticket was around late August, can't remember the exact date offhand)

I would remind the friend that he is laying himself open to a s172 charge by his tactic and on conviction would be liable to 6 points and a fine of £lots.

Playing 'time out' only if the s172 was unsigned...

Yes agreed. If you have given the correct details you have nothing to fear - but when the police make the effort to attend in person it means they don't believe that you have given the correct details.

So it's an urban myth that speeding charge disappear after six months?

(I think this was his hope, I've not read up on it at all since it's not really my problem)

No, after 6 months they can't prosecute for speeding, but they can for failing to name the driver, 6 points, fine around £500 and higher insurance for 5 years - so a stupid option really.

In Scotland there is the option to return the final S172 to the driver with the drivers details but the driver does not sign.

Does the ability to lay an information alleging failure to furnish information (ie s.172) not stop 6 months after the first occasion on which information was allegedly not furnished?

OP what was the date of the first NIP to the nominated driver (the OP's friend)? That woudl allow us to estimate the 6 month period available to lay an information.

I can't quite remember exactly, but it was certainly before Christmas and could have been as early as October.

Offence in August, a week or so to your NIP, 3-4 weeks for you to reply if you were playing along, a week to turn around and then 28 days for them to reply, and 6 months from them, so the S172 is likely to timeout this month, but they have all they need to lay an information for the S172.

The police (presumably the officer who visited on Thursday) phoned my office this morning. I wasn't in the building at the time, but it's a clear indication of their intention to pursue it.