Free Traffic Legal Advice

Context: My wife was caught speeding in our car (registered in my name). I received the Notice to Intended Prosecution (NIP) and tried to respond online to nominate her as the driver. However, the portal gave me an error saying a response had "already been submitted."

In the chaos of trying to fix this, I misplaced the paperwork, but I didn't give up. I’ve spent months persistently trying to contact the police to explain the situation and provide her details. Despite my efforts, I’m now being charged with:

1.Failing to provide driver information (Section 172)

2.Speeding

I have a full timeline of my attempts to contact them. How do I best present this "reasonable diligence" defence to get the S172 dropped?

See timeline below:

21 July 2025 - Wife caught speeding

7 August 2025 - my Brother receives PCN to my UK address whilst I am away on holiday in France. He tells me it looks serious, and I ask him to open it on my behalf.

7 August 2025 -  I immediately access the portal to try to respond. When I log in, a message says I have already responded. Odd. I decided to wait until I got back to the UK to send the paper copy back.

10 August 2025 - Try to access the portal and message pops up saying I’ve already responded.

25 August 2025 - Back home and can’t find paperwork.

26th August 2025 - I try logging into the portal again. But message pops up stating I’ve already responded.  I contact the Central ticket office, explain that I don’t have the paperwork and confirmed that Josephine was the driver of the car. Am given a generic response (we will contact you in 5 working days)

I also email the central ticket office directly (as opposed to going through the website) I explain the situation and include a screenshot of the portal telling me that I’ve already responded.

No response.

I try ringing the CTO directly, however it leads to a voicemail. I leave a voicemail on the system, explaining the situation, in detail. (Josephine was driving the car, I’ve tried the portal but it won’t let me in as I have apparently already responded, and then reiterate that I’ve lost the paperwork.)

I read the news, and follow current affairs and I fully understand (and am sympathetic to the fact) that policing is very stretched at the moment, so I rationalise that there is most likely a serious delay in backlog of work that the police have to go through.

12 September 2025 - I have still not had a response, therefore I ‘reply’ to my own email to the CTO from the 26th August stating ‘ I havent received a reply for this? Please could you confirm receipt?’.

4th November 2025 - I receive my first reply from West Midlands Police. They apologise for the delay in replying to my email, state that they have checked their system and that there may have been technical issues with the Online Portal when I attempted to submit my response. They then go on to state that I will need to fill out the relevant sections and return the paperwork to the CTO through the post. A copy of the notice will be sent out to me tomorrow in case I no longer have the original.

4th November 2025 - I reply in less than 10 minutes. Explaining that I’ll try and respond on the portal again, and failing that will complete the paperwork they were sending out the following day. I also asked for clarification that I wasn’t going to be penalised for the failure of the computer system as I didn’t want it to be flagged as a late response.

19th November 2025 - After no reply, I ‘reply’ to the last email I sent the CTO, explaining that I havent received the promised paperwork and whether they could please resend.

That afternoon the CTO replies, they explain that they note my comments and were aware that there are technical issues with the online portal. They advised me to complete my paperwork and return it to them. They added that a failure to do so may result in the matter being passed to the court to be dealt with.

21st November 2025 - I reply on the email thread, explaining that in my original email, and in my last email I had explained to them that I don’t have the paperwork and please could they resend.

That afternoon the CTO replies with the same generic message that I received a few days prior. They explain that they note my comments and were aware that there are technical issues with the online portal. They advised me to complete my paperwork and return it to them. They added that a failure to do so may result in the matter being passed to the court to be dealt with.

24th November 2025 - I reply, explaining again, that I have told them through various means that I don’t have the paperwork. I then asked for the following two actions:

Please could they send the paperwork ASAP.

Please can this be escalated to a senior member of staff as a matter of urgency.

I explained that it’s not my fault the portal isn’t working as it should be, the whole thing has been hanging over my head and I would like it sorted as soon as possible.

No reply.

28 January 2026 - I receive a SJPN in the post.

Thank you so much for reading. What advice would you give to me in this situation?

Forget the form, forget the portal, what information did you actually provide? Providing a vague summary such as "confirmed that Josephine was the driver" is a waste of everyone's time.

In your initial version, you said that you misplaced the paperwork. In your chronology, you were trying to use the portal in France and in the next entry you couldn't find the paperwork when you got home.

Hi Andy, Thank you for your reply!

1. In each correspondence I wrote that Josephine was the driver of the car at the time, I also mentioned this verbally when I left a voicemail on their system. What information would you suggest I should have provided?

2. The letter was delivered to my address in the UK whilst I was away on holiday in France. My brother saw the letter, thought it looked serious, so asked me whether he should open it for me. I confirmed he could, and he sent me a photo of the first page. So, as I was in France, I logged into the portal to try to respond straight away. When I arrived back from my holiday in france with the intention of submitting the paper copy, however my brother had missplaced the letter, meaning I couldn't find it.

Hopefully this answers your questions

I understand you're obviously not going to (nor should you) post her full name on here, but did you provide her full name and address at any point?

In all correspondence, I referred to her in her full name. I didn't provide an address, however for what it's worth, I've just checked and in my early correspondence, I confirmed my address, and then a line down, informed them that my wife Josephine (insert second name) was the driver. Perhaps this was a mistake on my part to not specifically say that she lived with me. Do you think this could hurt my case?

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.

As I already posted...

Whether a bench would agree on the day is another matter, but your options are either to defend the s.172 or simply take the 6 points on the chin. The speeding charge us about as relevant as what you had for breakfast.

Previously you indicated that you provided your wife's full name, but not her address. Now you appear to be telling us that that you specifically told them that she lives at the same address as you.

Reasonable diligence applies when you don't know who was driving. Reasonable practicability applies when it is not reasonably practicable to provide the information. However, in either case, it is not a question of whether you had made a reasonable effort, it is whether you could have provided the information without exceeding what could reasonably be expected of you.

Technically, substantial compliance is not a defence insofar as the offence is not made out. The law does not require you to use the form provided, as long as you satisfy the substance of the stated requirement.

N.B. Subject to any statutory defences (such as reasonable practicability), an offence is committed if the information is not provided at the expiration of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice (deemed to be 2 working days after posting for first class post, unless the contrary is proven).

You mentioned that your brother received the NIP on 7th August. Receipt is irrelevant. Date of service (delivery) is relevant if it can be proven, otherwise the date of posting (presumably the issue date) is what matters. If you complied with the substance of the requirement within 27 days of the date of service (deemed or proven), you are golden. If not, can you show that it would not have been reasonably practicable to do so within that time?


.

As I already posted...

Quote from: andy_foster on January 29, 2026, 10:20:56 am

Whether a bench would agree on the day is another matter, but your options are either to defend the s.172 or simply take the 6 points on the chin. The speeding charge us about as relevant as what you had for breakfast.

Previously you indicated that you provided your wife's full name, but not her address. Now you appear to be telling us that that you specifically told them that she lives at the same address as you.

Reasonable diligence applies when you don't know who was driving. Reasonable practicability applies when it is not reasonably practicable to provide the information. However, in either case, it is not a question of whether you had made a reasonable effort, it is whether you could have provided the information without exceeding what could reasonably be expected of you.

Technically, substantial compliance is not a defence insofar as the offence is not made out. The law does not require you to use the form provided, as long as you satisfy the substance of the stated requirement.

N.B. Subject to any statutory defences (such as reasonable practicability), an offence is committed if the information is not provided at the expiration of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice (deemed to be 2 working days after posting for first class post, unless the contrary is proven).

You mentioned that your brother received the NIP on 7th August. Receipt is irrelevant. Date of service (delivery) is relevant if it can be proven, otherwise the date of posting (presumably the issue date) is what matters. If you complied with the substance of the requirement within 27 days of the date of service (deemed or proven), you are golden. If not, can you show that it would not have been reasonably practicable to do so within that time?


.

Apologies, I stand by what I originally said, I provided her name only. Sorry for the typo on my latest reply.

I've gone back and checked the dates, the NIP was sent and dated the 07/08/2025. I have looked at the email trail and I have an email to the police on the 26/08/2025 (9 days before the deadline) stating that the driver of the car was my wife, Josephine Bonaparte.

@indigo2026  -  "Apologies, I stand by what I originally said, I provided her name only. Sorry for the typo on my latest reply.

I've gone back and checked the dates, the NIP was sent and dated the 07/08/2025. I have looked at the email trail and I have an email to the police on the 26/08/2025 (9 days before the deadline) stating that the driver of the car was my wife, Josephine Bonaparte."


So the date of the alleged speeding is 21 July 2025 and the NIP was issued(?) on 07 August 2025?

How do you know the date of the NIP if your brother lost(!) it?

Presumably from the photo he took of the front page?

Yes, and yes. (It's worth noting here that the car is leased)

And I know the dates from the photo he took of the front page, yes

In Jones v DPP (2004), the principle issue was that Dr Jones was a consultant, and therefore very much their sort of person, but I digress...

The ratio decidendi of the Divisional Court's judgment is the legal principle upon which it was decided. This became binding case law. There were 2 principles in NJ's summary - that there was nothing wrong in satisfying the substance of the requirement (in this case providing a signed letter, instead of using the form provided), and that the DJ was wrong to hold the fact that Dr Jones did not use the form against him. Clearly the root of the ratio is that there is nothing wrong in law with complying with the substance of the requirement to name the driver, where the stated requirement to use a particular form is immaterial to the legal process.

The fact that the response was in writing, and signed by Dr Jones does not mean that that is required for substantial compliance. In law the response in the form of a letter had exactly the same evidential value as if it has somehow been squeezed onto the form.

The case law that ostensibly provides the authority for the police to require that a response is in writing and signed all stems from Lord Woolf's judgment in Boss v Measures - there is an implied power in s. 172 (and it's legislative precursors) to make reasonable requirements as to the manner in which the required information should be provided. Reasonable in all the authorities was predicated on giving effect to Parliament's legislative purpose, by closing what were effectively loopholes. Telephoning a random council employee and telling them who was driving a particular car on a particular occasion does not satisfy the substance of the requirement to provide the information to the parking department in order to issue proceedings against the driver. In Francis v DPP (2004) (same Idris Francis, different case to O'Halloran & Francis v the UK in the Grand Chamber of the ECHR) Francis was the driver, and as such the stated requirement to sign the s. 172 response was necessary to enable it to be admissible under s. 12(1) RTOA 1988. For many years, a number of people who failed to understand the question were adamant that there was some overarching rule that any s. 172 response must be in writing and signed by the addressee. The fact that many police forces now allow online nominations where the addressee was not the driver, but not where he was the driver illustrate just how badly they failed to understand the question.