I did not receive any of the NIP's as these were sent to my previous address. I know because I have just confirmed with the DVLA that they still have my old address on record incorrectly.
If the V5C previously had your correct details and you moved without notifying the DVLA in respect of your V5C, *they* did record your address incorrectly.
You also claim to have updated your tax address - assuming that you are referring to car tax, that is another lie. There is no address for car tax, other than the address for the RK on the V5C.
Currently, unless squaring the circle of updating the address for tax but not V5C discloses a defence, the prosecution will almost certainly be able to prove the 4 s. 172 offences but none of the speeding offences. That would nominally put you on 24 points, which being a number that falls into the category "12 or more" would trigger a totting up ban, unless the court found that such a ban would cause exceptional hardship.
The stock advice is to plead not guilty to all charges, and try to do the deal. On the face of it, this would nominally result in 12 points, which is also a number in the category "12 or more", albeit with less insurance unfriendly endorsement codes and lower fines.
Technically there are <x> potential ways to avoid a totting up ban -
1. Defend the charges successfully somehow - nothing you have told us so far indicates a viable defence other than exceptional incompetence from the CPS (beyond the level of incompetence that the CPS would typically exhibit). N.B. If the prosecution can prove that the notices were properly posted to your last known address, they *will be* deemed to have been lawfully served unless and until you can prove that they were not delivered (which would appear to be somewhat difficult as you were not living there). Not being aware of the notices does not in and of itself constitute a defence of not being reasonably practicable to provide the information - the court would look at the wider question of whether it would have been reasonably practicable to ensure that such notices were brought to your attention, such as by complying with your legal obligation to inform the DVLA of your change of address in respect of the V5C.
2. Persuade the court to go outside their sentencing guidelines to order a short ban for the lowest end speeding offence(s) - absent Special Reasons Not to Endorse (SRNTE), if convicted, the court are required by law to order either 3-6 points or a ban for each offence. The guidelines say not to order a ban to avoid totting, and not to order a ban for a band A offence. The court can go outside the guidelines must must give a good reason for doing so. Not. Going. To. Happen.
3. If the court finds that there is sufficiently compelling mitigation regarding the reasons for committing the offence, they can convict without ordering endorsement - SRNTE, Whether or not that particular bench on that particular day would find that you dying dog would constitute SRNTE would seem to depend on the bench on the day and the details of your argument.
4. If convicted of any 4 of the offences, if the court does not find that there are SRNTE, the court will order your licence endorsed with somewhere between 12 and 24 points. You could technically get 36 points if you pleaded guilty to the speeding offences without agreeing a deal first and were then convicted of the s. 172 offences, but that would require incompetence to coincide with bad luck. If the court finds that the mandatory 6 month totting ban would cause exceptional hardship (to you and/or to others) - that is to say hardship beyond that which criminals facing a 6 month driving ban would ordinarily face - they can reduce the length of the ban, potentially to no ban at all.
As regards doing the deal. Technically it is within the gift of the prosecution, not the court to agree to drop one charge in return for a guilty plea for another. We are only aware of one case where the offer was rejected, which appears to be as the result of a spectacular failure of the attitude test - the accused went out of his way to antagonise the prosecutor, who perhaps unsurprisingly said no deal. The widespread policy of dual charging is ostensibly a nicety to enable the accused to cop for the generally less serious underlying motoring offence, but they are not technically alternative charges, and should not be treated as such unless the SJPN paperwork. Some courts seem to enact the deal without involving the prosecutor (presumably by agreement with the CPS, as otherwise they would be acting unlawfully), and sometimes even without the accused even asking. Others, not so much.
On the basis that you cannot plead guilt to the underlying offence if you were not the driver, logically, failure to name the driver would be as a result of, one of four things - not receiving the notice as a result of moving without updating the V5C, receiving the notice but wilfully refusing to name the driver, not receiving the notice because it was honestly and 100% genuinely not delivered (which would be a defence), or because you don't know who was driving and could not with reasonable diligence work out who was driving (which would also be a defence and raise the question of whether you are entitled to plead guilty to the underlying offence). To the extent that the court's views on the commission of an offence you are no longer being prosecuted for matter (which is basically their disposition to a request to be sentenced at fixed penalty level on the grounds that you were not offered one, not because you were driving too fast, but because you failed to update your V5C), making the common mistake of not realising that the V5C needed to be updated separately from your licence (and tax?
) is perhaps the least egregious one (excluding the examples which ought to see the accused defending the charge(s)).
