Free Traffic Legal Advice

Since you are not the person keeping the vehicle, but instead are “any other person” you have  duty to “… give any information which it is in [your] power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.”

As you have no information at all about the vehicle or its driver, that’s all you can tell them.

If the police want to treat you as if you are the person keeping the vehicle, and so be subject to the greater burden of providing the driver’s details, they must prove it. From what you say, they may have some difficulty doing that.

You should also tell them that you suspect somebody is using your address for fraudulent purposes.

Keep a copy of anything you send and get a free certificate of posting from the Post Office.

The “letter” isn’t addressed to the OP so what obligation does he have to reply? Is he “any other person”?

Yes.
When a S172 notice is received, the RTA states that the letter must be responded to by either the registered keeper or "any other person" who must give any information which is in his power to give so if a person is not the RK, it stands to reason that they must be "any other person".
Even if they can't identify the driver, it is still in their power to state this and say that they have no idea who the driver was and that they don't live at the stated address.

Quote from: Dave Green on June 13, 2025, 01:47:28 pm

Quote from: Southpaw82 on June 13, 2025, 01:22:23 pm

The “letter” isn’t addressed to the OP so what obligation does he have to reply? Is he “any other person”?

Yes.
When a S172 notice is received, the RTA states that the letter must be responded to by either the registered keeper or "any other person" who must give any information which is in his power to give so if a person is not the RK, it stands to reason that they must be "any other person".
Even if they can't identify the driver, it is still in their power to state this and say that they have no idea who the driver was and that they don't live at the stated address.

Try again. The s 172 is not addressed to the OP.

Even if the OP is not obliged to reply wouldn't it be more prudent of him to reply explaining his situation as he has here rather than either just ignoring it or sending it back marked "Not known at this address"?

Seems to me the OP would be better off trying to nip this in the bud now by honestly explaining that someone must have given the police a false address rather than dealing from the hassle likely to result from not replying or marked "Not known".

Doesn't Andy Foster usually suggest it's better to lay your cards on the table earlier rather than later?

Even if the OP is not obliged to reply wouldn't it be more prudent of him to reply explaining his situation as he has here rather than either just ignoring it or sending it back marked "Not known at this address"?

Seems to me the OP would be better off trying to nip this in the bud now by honestly explaining that someone must have given the police a false address rather than dealing from the hassle likely to result from not replying or marked "Not known".

My immediate reaction upon skimming your post was "This!"

Doesn't Andy Foster usually suggest it's better to lay your cards on the table earlier rather than later?

For the sake of completeness, firstly, SP is correct that the OP has no legal obligation to respond at all.
Secondly, what you said. Thirdly, if somebody has been taking liberties with the OP's address (whether specifically aimed at the OP, or more likely simply picked an address at random), there is a possibility that there is more to follow and both setting out one's stall early, and having a paper trail regarding same might avoid a lot of avoidable hassle further down the road.

In general, if the unfettered truth is not your friend, then it is generally prudent to play your cards as close to your chest as the law permits.

If you have a defence that relies on your credibility as a witness, setting out your stall early is generally a good idea.

If you have been improperly placed upon the sausage machine, heading it off at the pass may well save a lot of avoidable hassle later.

N.B. This is not a mixed metaphor (technically) as these are 3 separate statements.

@OP - Try to avoid making a somewhat spurious assumption and running with it.

The first point, is that you are not the person named, nor does he live at that address, nor (presumably) do you or anyone else living at that address have any know anyone of that name.

The notice (which is not addressed to you, and which you are not obliged to respond to, but might save avoidable hassle further down the road if you do) does not ask if you, anyone else at the address, or the person named on the notice has ever owned or registered a vehicle, it asks who was driving. We do not know whether there was any chain leading to "your" NIP, or whether it was sent to the RK (as recorded by the DVLA), despite no V5C ever having been received.
What is most relevant is whether you (or anyone else at the address) was driving, or has any knowledge of who was driving, or has any connection to or knowledge of the vehicle in question.
Whether or not any of you own a car, has little to no bearing regarding the question of who was driving the vehicle in question.

I will admit that I had overlooked the fact that the request was not addressed to the OP.

However, I think I would get the ball rolling to get this issue raised with the police at an early stage. As well as telling them he has no knowledge of the vehicle (or the incident which led to he s172 request to be raised) he should emphasis that he has no knowledge of the person to who it is addressed either.

I don't think I would ignore it but point taken about his legal obligation.

A new keeper has been telling porkie pies about his address, and has used your address.  I fear you have a lot of these coming your way. Further down the line it is possible you could get court bailiffs coming to your address if and when matters go to court.  So unfortunately, you may be kept fairly busy on this.