Free Traffic Legal Advice

I’ve recently been summoned to Court (hearing at the end of May) for failing to provide driver information (s172).

I plead not guilty to the SJPN on the basis that I never received the original NIP or any reminders because they were sent to an address I moved out of more than two years ago. I only became aware of the situation when I found the Single Justice Procedure Notice in the post box (for context, my partner still owns our old house but it is tenanted and so we are no longer resident there; it was by pure coincidence that I visited the property before the SJPN expired).

I don't own a car, but do have a UK licence on which the address is my current address, registered on the electoral roll, all bank accounts registered to my new address, etc.

For some additional context, I had my identity stolen in 2023 whilst living at my old address, and it has since been used to open various bank accounts in my name. The latest incarnation is providing my details in response to various offences when requested by the police. One force managed to forward a NIP to my new address to allow me to respond, but seems this one didn't.

Upon receiving the notice, I contacted the police force in question immediately and:

* Provided my current address and evidence of when I moved
* Confirmed I have no connection to the vehicle in the notices
* Flagged that I believe my identity (driving licence details) has been misused, including in responding to the original notice

The police acknowledged I didn’t receive the notices, but are proceeding on the basis that the registered keeper named me and the matter is now in front of the court.

My understanding is that the key defence here is that it was “not reasonably practicable” for me to respond within the required timeframe, given I never received the notice.

I’m trying to sense-check whether this sounds like a fairly straightforward defence in practice, or it’s worth getting a solicitor involved ahead of the hearing.

I’m comfortable presenting the facts and evidence myself, but conscious that these things can turn on technicalities.

Thanks in advance.

Thanks for your response.

A notice is deemed served when it is delivered to the addressee's "last known address", so on the face of it, even though the nomination was fraudulent, you were obliged to provide any information that was in your power to give.

This is fair and I am ultimately clear on my obligations - had I received the notices at my current address, I would've replied to them (as I did when I became aware).

Not receiving or being aware of the notice is not in and of itself a complete defence.

You are right, and I suppose the difference in Whitehouse (following a very cursory glance) is that the notice was sent to an address where he was reasonably expected to receive it.

Ultimately, it was not reasonable for me to respond to the NIP because it was sent to an address I vacated two years ago.

My understanding is that for service to be valid at a "last known address" (if this in fact becomes the prosecution's defence), the claimant must have been unable to ascertain a defendant's current residence; I'm not confident this can be true given the number of public records which refer to my current address.

I would suggest (if a particularly mendacious prosecutor were to suggest that a similar obligation would have applied to you), that putting measures in place to ensure that notices concerning vehicles that you had no connection to and which were generated as the result of fraudulent nominations would wall massively what might be considered to be reasonable.

Believe me when I say I have contacted both the DVLA and the various police forces who have been supplied with my information to understand how I can prevent this from happening. Aside from hoping that they actually review public records to find my new address before moving to the SJP, it seems they have no answers (very happy to hear any suggestions!).

Many thanks again for sharing your thoughts!

Quote from: appleseed on Today at 04:06:58 pm

My understanding is that for service to be valid at a "last known address" (if this in fact becomes the prosecution's defence), the claimant must have been unable to ascertain a defendant's current residence; I'm not confident this can be true given the number of public records which refer to my current address.

When a NIP and/or S172 request is to be sent to the Registered Keeper, the "last known address" is taken as that shown on the DVLA record at the date of the (alleged) offence. In most cases that is correct.

The police are not required to trawl other records on the off-chance that it might be wrong, and in any case it would be impractical. The DVLA record ties a particular individual to the vehicle in question. There may be many others with the same name, e.g. John Smith, and no easy way to know which John Smith's new address they are seeking.

Which is all very good, but irrelevant if the OP wasn’t the RK. That being said, the fact that he uses “claimant” rather suggests that he is confusing criminal and civil procedural rules.