Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote

I'm assuming this means I can just plead not guilty to the first charge of withholding the identity of the driver but guilty to the speeding charge?

Yes, that's the way to go.

Unfortunately different areas adopt different procedures, which makes it difficult to give consistent advice.

To be honest, the method you have been offered is far more sensible in most cases. The problem is, if you are not specifically told the offences are "in the alternative" and you plead guilty to speeding (which would not succeed without a guilty plea), there is a danger (admittedly a small one) that the court will then continue with the other charge and you do not have much by way of a defence to it. That's the reason why we usually make the recommendation as I did.

But not to worry - the method you have been offered seems fine.

If the OP's ex, the OP's children and the OP all give credible evidence to the effect that *all* post addressed to the OP was handed to her, and that there was no NIP or reminder received, then she will be able to rebut the presumption of service.

The speeding charge is of no relevance unless she opts to do a deal. Similarly the evidence or lack thereof is irrelevant either way. Either the OP does the deal, in which case no evidence is needed of the speeding offence, or she defends the s. 172, in which case the speeding charge will go nowhere because they have no evidence that she was the driver.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the OP moved house without updating the address on the V5C, and [claims that she] didn't receive the NIP. The court are somewhat unlikely to accept that it must have been lost in the post en-route to the previous address, rather than either lost after being served (delivered to the last known address), or not lost at all.

The choice is either to defend the s. 172 charge, or do the deal and take the hit for the speeding.