Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi there, I hope you can help …
<br> <br>
Yesterday, I received a letter from Camera Processing Services, Met Prosecutions, P.O. Box 510, DA15 0BQ. The letter referred to a Notice of Intended Prosecution return that had been submitted. Before I continue, I must disclose that I was not aware of any such letter. In fact, my 23-year-old son, who lives at the same address, is the owner of the vehicle and resides with me.

<br><br>

The letter states that their checks suggest the information on the NIP was false and misleading. They are offering me the opportunity to reconsider the initial response I provided. If I wish to change the information provided, I should complete the NIP form overleaf, sign it, and provide evidence that the driver had insurance to drive the car in the form of an insurance certificate.

<br><br>

I am the registered keeper and owner of another vehicle, but I do not drive the vehicle in question. However, I am a named driver on the insurance. To the best of my knowledge, the only person who could have been driving is my son, as he is the legal owner (with my name as the Registered Keeper due to me financing the vehicle for him). Incidentally, the car was written off as an insurance write-off, and he no longer owns it.

<br><br>

By responding to the letter with the driver information, am I indirectly agreeing that I supplied false driver information? I did not provide any driver details initially.

<br><br>

I have completed the NIP form on the reverse of the letter and will send evidence of insurance along with my son’s details.

<br><br>

I have read on other forums that I should send a covering letter; however, this is not requested in the letter. It states that if I am providing a different name than that provided previously, I should provide evidence that they were insured to drive the vehicle. I suspect, without any evidence, that the initial letter may have been intercepted, but cannot prove this. I have not discussed the matter with my son, except for informing him that I am providing his details to the police following an NIP letter and asking him to share an email confirming his insurance to drive the vehicle.

Thank you for that.

Should I return the form with the information I have?

You have a curious way of providing information.

You are/were the RK of your son's car, you did not receive and were not aware of the original NIP, but have received a letter alleging that false information was provided in relation to the original NIP and offering you the opportunity to provide the correct information.

By providing the [correct] information you are complying with your legal obligation to do so. You are under no obligation to throw your son under the bus at this stage, as regards intercepting your post and providing false information, although you may wish to do so.

If this were to go south, I would suggest that no negative inference could be taken from simply supplying the required information and not going out of your way to throw your son under the bus.

The insurance angle is the stock response under s. 69 of the Ways and Means Act to trip up those who falsely name an "international driver". If you have a copy of your son's insurance (as you have intimated) then it is simplest to provide it. Otherwise, as you have no property in the car, you cannot have permitted your son to drive (with or without insurance), so the police have no right to demand it - although being co-operative within reason would seem to be a good idea in the circumstances.

If your son is likely to continue with "wizard wheezes", it might be appropriate to include a brief note explaining that your son is/was the owner and person keeping the vehicle, and that you were not aware of and did not respond to the original NIP.

While I may suspect that my son has been up to no good, I do not have proof of this. As Andy_Foster said, I do not want to throw him under the bus at this stage, especially since I have not been asked for my opinion on this point.

Thankfully, I am no longer the registered keeper of the vehicle, which is also no longer in my son’s ownership (it was written off two days after the alleged speeding offence took place overnight on a residential street; hit and run - my son was in bed and saw the wreckage when he woke in the morning trying to use the car to get work!).

Why not just ask him? Or along the lines of: "I've had this letter, do you know anything about it? I am going to respond saying that it's your car so they need to ask you".

The fact the car is written off and no longer owned by yourselves does not absolve you of the s172 request (and the driver of the underlying offence)

Many thanks for the feedback.

I believe some of my earlier comments may have been misconstrued when providing additional information.

I mentioned the fact that the car had been written off as a coincidence, and it was not connected to my belief that my responsibilities as the Registered Keeper were being negated.

_sparxy_, regarding asking my son about his knowledge of the NIP, I am reluctant to do this as I prefer not to know should this matter escalate. It is a suspicion that has arisen on receiving the letter (mentioned above), and I would rather remain unaware either way. My main concern was understanding if filling in the NIP and sending the requested information, i.e. the insurance certificate and the name of the driver, would implicate me in any wrongdoing. I was also clarifying if a covering letter was needed, given this was not asked for in the letter.

Thank you _slapdash_ the DVLA has been informed by myself and I have a receipt for this.

I appreciate those who have clarified what information I should provide, and I am very grateful for this guidance. Do all continue to share your comments/feedback as I am finding these very helpful.

You are required to name the driver, or if it is not possible with reasonable diligence to do so, provide any information that is in your power to give and that might lead to the identification of the driver.

Qualifying your response, rather than simply naming your son without qualification, does not constitute naming the driver. It also leaves an obvious hole in your account.

You either name your son as the driver, or you provide all the relevant information that is in your power to give.
As you appear to have avoided asking your son whether he was the driver, a reasonable diligence defence would fail.

The police seem to suspect foul play, but have offered a second opportunity to provide the information. If they feel that they are being played, they will quite happily forget about the underlying speeding offence and prosecute you and/or your son for whatever they think they can prove.

If you want to avoid the police making inferences, cross your fingers. Or you could do nothing and be convicted of the s. 172 offence and of permitting (6 points each)

Whoever submitted the nip may have commited an offence which is significantly more serious than the underlying offence being alleged. Nothing, of course, impacts that having happened.

Currently you appear to be being offered a chance to simply correct what has been submitted

There could be a risk that anything they consider to be other than a unequivocal nomination could rekindle more interest in what was submitted and by whom.

They have asked you to complete the s. 172 response form and provide evidence that the driver was insured. They have not asked you to provide the same information in a separate letter.

A covering letter might well be appropriate along the lines of "Please find enclosed completed s. 172 response form and insurance certificate", but unless you have something else to say (and you have clearly indicated that you do not want to draw attention to what appears to have happened), don't add to it (other than topping and tailing it).