There were potentially two separate potwntial defences - whether it was reasonably practicable to provide the required information, and whether you had complied with the substance of the requirement.
As you had a facsimile of the first page of the NIP/s.172 it would be difficult to argue that it would not have been reasonably practicable to name the driver in the form of a signed letter, or indeed an email for that matter. Whether the police would have "accepted" either of those has little bearing on the law - the police are entitled to make reasonable requirements as to the information to be provided, and you as the addressee are required to satisfy the substance of such requirements. For example, if you were the driver, they would need a signed response from you (in writing), as that would then become admissible evidence in a potential speeding prosecution. As you were not the driver, your nomination is merely information to direct the next notice, and also to enable the nominated person to be sufficiently identified to instigate a prosecution if they failed to satisfy the requirements of their notice.
Typically, the police ask for the name, address, date of birth and driving licence number of the driver. You started this thread 2 hours ago and, despite the amount of dentistry required, now you know what information would have been "required" - so unless the bench are sufficiently aggravated by the police's apparant incompetence, reasonable practicability still seems like a long shot as regards the "missing" details.
That still leaves the question of substantial compliance. Was her full name, with a presumption that she resides at the same address, sufficient? I would suggest that a quick PNC/DVLA search would show that there was only one Mrs Josephine Bonaparte living at that address, and fill in the blanks.
Whether a bench would agree on the day 8s another matter, but your options are either to defend the s.172 or somply take the 6 points on the chin. The speeding charge us about as relevant as ehat ypu had for breakfast.
If someone can dig up Jones v DPP(2004) that might assist the OP
Thank you for the detailed reply. I really appreciate it.
So forgive me if I’m wrong here, but my defence rests on two pillars:
Substantial Compliance and Reasonable Diligence.
Substantial Compliance: I named the driver (my wife) and provided my address as her place of residence as early as August. This gave the police everything they needed to issue a fresh notice to her.
Reasonable Diligence: My timeline proves I did everything within my power to comply. I attempted to use the portal (which was broken), called the office, and sent multiple emails. The 'failure' to provide the information on the specific physical form was a direct result of the police failing to send a replacement as promised, despite my repeated requests.
I can provide evidence of all the communication I've had with the police, so with this in mind, and the information I've provided. Do you think there's a reasonable chance that my argument would stand in court?
I can't help but feel a sense of injustice here.
Show Posts