Free Traffic Legal Advice

Do I now say I was driving to make this go away as its a less serious offence

That would be a very stupid thing to do .....and would potentially involve a jail sentence. In the circumstances, do you think they would believe you ?

It is your responsibility to ensure anyone driving your vehicle is insured to do so - you say "they" (we assume the police) asked for proof she was in the country, have they actually asked anything about her insurance cover ( yet) ?

Yes they have asked for insurance details, thats prompted the post on checking only today have we realised she wasnt insured.

I suspect that wont wash as the letter I have had sent to me says "its unlikely if the hold a policy where they live, that it would cover them to drive in this country". And turns out they are right.

Whats slightly galling (this is my first NIP letter) is the coercion to make me say it was me. Please provide proof Mrs xxx was in the country and had insurance. The onus is on you to provide these details, and if you cannot provide them it leads to additional more serious offences being conidered. However we were unble to accept your previous driver nomination without these details. We have enclosed a new for in case you have made a "mistake". Seriously oops I accindetly contacted my relative in California, got copies of her lisence etc etc by mistake.

Why dont they just openly say we want your £100 for the least effort possible.

I would suggest maybe the inference of a "mistake" is in.. are you sure your sister was driving AT THE RELEVANT TIME, however if you were to realise she in fact wasn't that would still leave you open to the possibility of allowing to drive uninsured as you have admitted she (at dome point) drove the vehicle.

Whats slightly galling (this is my first NIP letter) is the coercion to make me say it was me.

Where is the coercion to say it was you?

As above, to say that you were the driver when you know you were not is attempting to pervert the course of justice. That inevitably ends in jail time, even for MPs:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/11/chris-huhne-vicky-pryce

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47040912

I'm not sure they would succeed with the strategy of "...we were unble to accept your previous driver nomination without these details." The law requires you to provide "...such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police." You've done that. You do not need to give proof that they were in the country or that they were insured to fulfil that obligation. However, they can ask you to provide proof of insurance cover and if you cannot provide it they can take action.

The police are naturally sceptical when they receive a nomination involving a foreign driver. By giving you the opportunity to consider whether you have made a mistake they are, in my view, giving you the chance to nominate who really was driving in the event you made a false nomination. It's their way of not getting too heavy when they suspect a false nomination was made. They do the same if (say) the driver was clearly male from their evidence and a female was nominated.

That is clearly not the situation you are in, but it seems you are very likely to be stuck with the no insurance allegation.

Sorry, it’s only coercive on someone inclined to lie… as noted the wording is due to the number of people who claim a foreign driver as a ‘wizard wheeze’ to get off their own speeding offence, you know you named the right person so this can’t be considered coercive.

You know who was driving, to lie now carries the very real risk of circa twelve months in prison, so the reality is you’re going to have to accept you messed up and take the punishment (and hideous insurance premiums coming).

Case law on permitting is inconsistent. In a case where the driver told the keeper that they were insured and asked to borrow the car, it was found that the permission was conditional upon the driver being insured, and as they were not, the implied condition was not satisfied and therefore permission had not been given. In another case, the keeper asked the driver if they were insured and the driver incorrectly told the keeper that they were. The permission in that case was found not to be conditional. It is widely considered that the second case was wrongly decided.