Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi All I need some advice, I received a NIP/request for drivers details in relation to a speeding ticket from a speed camera.

I believe that it was something like 36 in a 30. However I was aware that this was going to come through as my car was listed for sale at this time and the driver was the person test driving my vehicle with me.

I advised him that I would most likely receive a NIP and asked to confirm his details using his drivers license. He had no ID on him he said but gave me a name and an address. I had no alternative but to take this.

When I receive the NIP I responded with the details that I had been given and explained the situation. My reply was as followed,

Dear Sirs,

I am writing in response to the NIP regarding the speeding offence involved with vehicle XXX. I would like to clarify that i was not the driver at the time of the incident.

I have been attempting to sell my vehicle and had arranged a viewing on 28/02/25. He requested that i pick him up to show him the car. At approximately 8pm that evening i met with him, he asked to take the car for a test drive. He presented temporary insurance on his phone and based on this i agreed to accompany him on a test drive.

During the drive he proceeded along the XXXXXXX, where he was caught by a speed camera. As i regularly drive this route i informed him that i would likely receive a NIP and requested his details.  He hastily provided his name and address and claimed to have left his driving license at home and told me to trust him.

I have tried, however been unable to verify the accuracy of the details supplied to me as this was a strange I had met through Facebook marketplace for the first time. I have provided you with the details given to me in line with section 172 of the road traffic act 1988.

I hope this information assists in resolving the matter.


Anyway about 3 days ago i received the attached in the post. Im not sure what to do with this, I have given them everything I can, to be honest its like they did not read the letter attached. I have nothing more to give them, so just wondering the best way to proceed.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I think you can look forward to being prosecuted for "failing to provide driver's details".

However, there is a precedent which was heard in the High Court in 2011 where the circumstances were almost identical to yours:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff73060d03e7f57ea9577#:~:text=Ruling,police%2C%20despite%20their%20best%20efforts.

In brief, the court found that the responsibility to exercise "reasonable diligence" when trying to discover who was driving only begins when you receive the request from the police. You are not expected to know at all times who was driving your vehicle and it cannot be part of the case against you that you failed to get and confirm the driver's full details before then.

What you will have to do is to convince the court that since receiving the request, you have done all you could to try to identify the driver, but without success.

What precisely have you done to try to trace this person?

this was a stranger I had met through Facebook marketplace for the first time.

As it seems the details he gave could well have been fictitious, did you provide the person's Facebook handle/name? It may be possible for the police to trace them through that (though no guarantee as that's probably made up, too). Regardless of that, and whether it would absolve you of the Failing to Furnish accusation, there is still the matter of permitting to drive uninsured, unless you have a policy that allows any driver (unlikely).

The police appear to be treating this as a "my dog ate my homework" - although in this case, the dog does not appear to be an "international driver". They have sent you a stock "my [foreign] dog ate my homework" letter.

The letter in and of itself, and any purported demands within, have no standing in law. In effect it merely restates the original requirement, and offers an opportunity to fill in any gaps.

As a matter of law, subject to any applicable defences, you either complied with the s. 172 requirement or you didn't.

The applicable defences rely on having ticked the relevant boxes, and the court believing you (on the balance of probabilities).

As the person keeping the vehicle you obligation was to provide the driver's details as required by the notice.
Where it starts to make my head hurt, is that you don't seem to believe that the details provided were correct (and you have told the police as much). The police have been "unable to trace him" - which might merely indicate that they send a notice which was ignored, or that they have exercised much diligence and can comprehensively show that nobody of that name has ever lived at that address. The first question becomes whether or not the prosecution can prove that the information you provided was incorrect. The second question is to what standard that can or needs to be proven.

If the court finds that you did not provide the correct driver's details, then the statutory defences come into play. The statutory defences are that you provided all the information that was in your power to give, and which might lead to the driver's identification and that you do not know who was driving and that you could not identify the driver with reasonable diligence (or that it was not reasonably practicable to provide the information).

As regards, providing "any information that is within your power to give...", it would be for the prosecution to prove that you had further relevant information that you failed to provide. Such as have met through Facebook marketplace, and presumably having access to his Facebook username and profile, but failing to provide such information in your s. 172 response.

A court might also find it unusual for two strangers to arrange to meet with a view to one selling a car to the other, without exchanging names and phone numbers. Or notice that disproportionate number of unidentified people caught speeding while test-driving a car that they then decided not to buy.

Fortunately, the police appear to be giving you a second chance to provide the "information within your power to give..."