Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: zebedee on June 23, 2026, 09:52:00 am
-
For sh*ts and giggles, I would question whether his false admission to being the driver of the vehicle in question at the time and date in question, would leave him open to a charge under s. 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 - although presumably as long as he thinks it doesn't apply he will be ok.
-
Does the notice mention, perchance, "GMT" after the time stated? If so, and the time stated is one hour earlier than when the incident occurred (which you seem to recall) that would explain the "error" and so end any arguments.
If not, you must think this through.
Though it may not seem like it, you have been sent two distinct documents.
The first is the Notice of Intended Prosecution (“NIP). This must satisfy the requirements of s1 of the Road Traffic Offenders’ Act which says that a NIP must provide “…the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed,..”
As above, you could try arguing that the NIP does not satisfy that requirement and so you cannot be convicted. The important thing here is what is mentioned in “Read me first”:
"Minor errors in a NIP, which do not negate the purpose of enabling the driver to recall the incident which gave rise to the allegation, do not void the NIP."
You seem to have a good recollection of the event. If you attempt to defend the charge on the basis of a deficient NIP you will almost certainly be asked, in court, whether or not you have that recollection. Unless you want to commit perjury (potentially turning a fine and points into jail time) you will have to say that you do. Having done that, the court will almost certainly find that the NIP fulfilled its purpose.
The second document you have is a “request for driver’s details”, issued under s172 of the Road Traffic Act. You could begin your response to that as BertB suggests, simply stating that your car was not at the location at the time stated, and see how they react. Waiting 14 days will make the issue of a second compliant NIP impossible. However, because of my view (above) of the validity of the one you have, I don’t believe it will make much difference.
The risk you take here is if you fanny about too much with making a valid response to the request, the police may simply proceed to prosecute you under s172. I would not rate your chances of successfully defending such a charge (especially bearing in mind the view I believe the court would take on the NIP). The good news is that in the event of an insufficient response to that request, the speeding charge is a dead duck. The bad news is that a conviction for a s172 offence carries a hefty fine, six points and an endorsement code (MS90) which will see your insurance premiums considerably increased for up to five years.
My advice would be to make an approach to the police to see if they are willing to discontinue the matter because of this discrepancy. If they are not, I would accept any offer of an out-of-court disposal they might make.
What was the alleged offence?
-
That is irrelevant to be honest. It is whether a court would share that opinion based upon the facts. One of them being did you drive down that road on that day at roughly 1hr time difference. You did, obviously, otherwise how would you know that the time is 1hr out for the location given?
You never mentioned anything wrong with the date of offence.
Your easiest approach still is to email or contact the CTO involved informing them of their error and state that you can evidence (assuming you can) that your vehicle was elsewhere at the time. They may drop it or they may push ahead and say you will have to dispute this formally.
-
The date and time of an incident are not, in my opinion, minor errors.
-
Minor errors in a NIP, which do not negate the purpose of enabling the driver to recall the incident which gave rise to the allegation, do not void the NIP. E.g. if you know that the location on the NIP is wrong because you know you got caught just past the bus stop, the NIP is still valid
Did you drive down that road at all that day but at a different time, maybe by an hour or so?
-
Sorry - but I did read the READ THIS FIRST sticky. I have now re-read it. Which bit are you certain I have overlooked?
-
Tell me that you couldn't be bothered to read the "READ THIS FIRST" sticky, without telling me that you couldn't be bothered to read the "READ THIS FIRST" sticky.
-
Generally the best time (no pun) to point this out would have been when naming the driver. Usually advice is to wait until 14 days have elapsed from the date of offence and then reply with a cover letter giving your details but pointing out that while you are the RK and driver of the vehicle, the vehicle itself was at such and such location at the time specified.
There are no guarantees of success, but we have heard of forces then dropping the prosecution due to a processing error. If you have all of the reference numbers still, you could try emailing or phoning the CTO involved and tell them that although you nominated yourself the car was elsewhere, etc.
Otherwise the only other course you have is to reject all out of court settlement offers and plead NG in order to put your case across. The problem is, if it is a GMT/BST error, the Magistrate may allow this to be corrected under the slip rule. Which then makes the day out very expensive.
What are we talking here, Speeding? What was the alleged speed and limit?
-
I'm fairly sure that the time shown on my letter from the Met is wrong, possibly one hour out. I've already replied online to say I was driving, but I'm pretty certain that at the time shown I was miles away. Is there a justifiable defence here?