It explicitly states that the "speed" is for speeding offences only.
As a matter of law, I would say that how much information they are required to provide in order to satisfy the requirements of s. 1 RTOA 1988 is open to interpretation. The test is whether the details provided satisfied the purpose of the requirement, to enable the accused to recall or identify the incident which gave rise to the allegation while it was still relatively fresh in his mind.
In Young v Day the court found that a notice alleging dangerous driving on a particular road which was 4 miles long was insufficient as the police could readily have provided more information, and that that nullified the warning. The Divisional Court held that the lower court were perfectly entitled to reach that decision, relying on their local knowledge of the road in question.
The police often seem to take the view that they are only required to tick certain boxes, and that that is all they do.
If the incident in question is the one you presume that the notice refers to, it would seem that the notice has through zero effort on behalf of the police served its purpose. If it was some other incident that you had no knowledge whatsoever of, then unless further detail would somehow enable you to do something that is time critical and would potentially assist any potential defence then further detail that the police could potentially have included would not help and failure to include it would not invalidate the warning.
However, if it was something which you did not consider to be an incident, but which would have been likely to have been brought to mind if the police had included information that they could have readily provided if they were so minded, then I would suggest that the notice is defective as regards the warning.
As has been said, the requirement to name the driver applies regardless.
