Free Traffic Legal Advice

Two separate issues - the requirement (on the police) to give warning of intended prosecution under s. 1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and the requirement on the addressee to provide information regarding the driver's identity under s. 172(7) Road Traffic Act 1988.

Typically both of these things are bundled up into a single document, but the rules for the purposes of each requirement differ.

There is no time limit for a requirement under s. 172(7) to be served. The requirement to provide the information is not dependent on the possibility of defences to the speeding charge (such as failure to serve a NIP on the RK within the 14 days).

The requirements of s. 1 RTOA 1988 are presumed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proven. It is not sufficient to simply put the prosecution to proof.

S. 7 Interpretation Act 1978 provides a rebuttable presumption of service for both if the prosecution can prove that the notice(s) was properly posted, again unless and until the contrary is proven. The presumption for first class post is that the notice was delivered 2 working days after posting.

Proof of posting would typically be a manifest showing that x number of items were collected by Postman Pat, and another showing that x number of notices were prepared on that day, including the one they are claiming was sent to you.

Proving the contrary would entail the defence persuading the court that it was more likely than not that the notice(s) was not delivered within the applicable time-frame or at all. This would be a matter of fact for the court to find based on the evidence you present.

Most forces that still issue "reminders" do so after the 28 days to provide the information has already lapsed, meaning that they are not so much a reminder as a second bite at the cherry. However, we do hear of a number of cases where the "reminder" is sent in time to actually remind the addressee of the original 28 day requirement which is still ticking away.