Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi everyone, hope you are well,

I'm new to the forum and just wanted to say it looks like a fantastic community—kudos to the creators and contributors for making it such a valuable resource!

I'm reaching out for some advice on a speeding ticket issue we're dealing with. My sister received a speeding notice for an offense that occurred on 12/05/2024. The letter she received was dated 14/05/2024. At that time, I was actually in possession of the car, so she sent them my details as the potential driver. However, it's possible that either I or the mechanic could have been driving the car.

My sister has now come to me with the second letter, as she’s concerned that something might be wrong with the details I provided or something else. The cover letter states that "enquiries have been made in relation to information provided and we have reasonable grounds to suspect the information provided is false or misleading." I’ve searched the forum for answers but quickly realized that most of these cases are unique and might require specific advice.

Has anyone had a similar experience or know how to handle this situation? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance!

Much of this potentially depends on what the s. 172 notice/form actually says. If it asks for the name of the [actual] driver, then if she was unable to provide such information, she should have provided further information, even if it was just that the car had been lent to you at the time.

If it merely asks for the name of the driver/potential driver/person wot it was lent to/etc., then it would seem that she has complied.

Let's get this right.
Did your sister reply to the initial NIP with your (correct) details? Or was she more vague about it, e.g. someone else's details?
Did you subsequently get your own S.172 request and reply to it? (You said in your first post "something might be wrong with the details I provided or something else," suggesting you did. Yet you next post says "I did not know of the NIP until this second letter arrived." Some consistency would help.)
So, what exactly did you reply with? Did you unequivocally name either yourself or the mechanic?
Seems it's taken best part of 4 months for the police to investigate whatever they were told. Be good to know what they were told and by whom.

One thought, are you insured on the car? Or do you have valid ‘drive other vehicle’ cover on your insurance? It may be you are not showing as insured.

Please note that if her response was equivocal the police would reject it.  So if she didn't simply nominate you as the driver but instead said anything like "I'm not 100% sure but it was probably my brother" then it would be rejected.

The thing is that it has taken 4 months to get to this point. An equivocal response would have got speedier action, surely, or possibly a straight Failing to Furnish charge.

What the OP hasn't said about this letter the police sent is what they expect the next steps to be. Have they given the sister the opportunity to resubmit, or something else?