Free Traffic Legal Advice

There is no "We" in this.

Presumably your wife is the registered keeper, received the initial notice, and has now received the SJPN. But you were driving. Is that correct?

If so, she must plead NOT guilty to the speeding charge.

For the "fail to furnish details" charge she may be best simply pleading guilty, to minimise the fine and costs, while giving a brief explanation in the Mitigation section of the form.

See what others think

So she needs to plead not guilty to the initial and then probs guilty to second and put in some explantation?

She MUST plead NG to speeding. First, she isn't guilty! Second, the police have no evidence to convict anyone, since they don't know who was driving.

As for the other charge, wait for some other views.

Reasonable practicability/diligence would not generally extend to checking something that you reasonably assumed you had no reason to check, or taking steps to rectify something that you reasonably assumed you had no reason to rectify.

The problem I see with that is [the court may consider] that, assuming it was a non-barcoded stamp, there can be few people in the country who do not know that they are no longer valid (and have not been so for more than a year). The OP's wife will have to convince them that she is one of those few.

My question really is how to plea to the secondary charge of not supplying driver details?

She should be aware that the consequences of a conviction for "failing to provide driver's details" are not trivial. This is by no means a "secondary" charge. Indeed it is now the only charge that will succeed and it carries a harsher penalty than speeding. With a guilty plea she will pay a fine of a week's net income. She will also pay a "victim surcharge" of 40% of that fine and costs of around £90.

As well as that she will have six points imposed on her driving record, but the biggest penalty of all is that she will have an endorsement code (MS90) which gives insurers a fit of the vapours. She will see considerably increased premiums for up to five years.

If she pleads not guilty but is convicted following a trial, the fine will increase to 1.5 week's net income and the costs could be as much as £650.

Hi All,

Below is my mitigating response. If anyone is able to give feedback on whether this sounds reasonable it would be much appreciated,

Mitigating Circumstances

I would like to provide a detailed explanation and timeline of events that led to the NIP/172 form not being received by Hampshire Constabulary, and the subsequent discovery that I was not driving at the time of the offense.

28.06.2024 – I received the NIP/172 Reminder Letter. Based on my recollection, as my husband and I had shared the driving on a return journey from holiday, I believed I was the driver at the time of the alleged speeding offense. I completed the form accordingly, naming myself as the driver.

09.07.2024 – I returned the completed NIP/172 form to the Summary Justice Unit, Hampshire & Isle of Wight Constabulary, using a First Class stamp from a booklet we had at home.

05.11.2024 – I received the completed NIP/172 form back from Royal Mail, marked as undeliverable. The reason cited was that the stamp was “No Longer Valid for Postage.” I later learned that since 31 July 2023, Royal Mail had invalidated non-barcoded stamps.
The returned envelope included my original addressed envelope (see Appendix A), with markings indicating that the addressee had not collected it from the sorting office. This suggests that the form did not reach Hampshire Constabulary due to the expired stamp.
Neither my husband nor I frequently use postal services, as our work is conducted online. When completing and sending the form, we were unaware of this change in postal requirements, leading to the unfortunate use of an expired stamp.

05.11.2024 (same day) – Upon receiving the returned NIP/172 form, I immediately attempted to rectify the issue. I contacted Hampshire Constabulary through various channels (phone, Facebook, Twitter, and their website) to explain the circumstances and seek guidance.

06.11.2024 – I coincidentally received a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN) from HMCTS Crime. This letter included photographic evidence of the vehicle at the time of the offense, which showed that my husband, not I, was driving. I contacted HMCTS immediately and was advised to first reach out to Hampshire Constabulary to explain the situation.

07.11.2024 – Hampshire Constabulary responded to my email and online submission, informing me that I would need to proceed through the court system to address the matter.

Additional Context

I would like to respectfully highlight the following points:

Section 172(7)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 – This clause provides a defense if it was not "reasonably practicable" to provide the required information within the specified timeframe.
I took all reasonable steps to comply with the NIP/172 requirements, completing and posting the form on 09.07.2024. However, the postal error caused by my use of an expired stamp—a mistake I was unaware of at the time—was beyond my control.
Upon receiving the returned form on 05.11.2024, I acted immediately to address the situation, contacting Hampshire Constabulary and later responding to the SJPN.
Efforts to Correct the Driver Identification – After reviewing the photographic evidence included with the SJPN, it became clear that my husband was driving at the time of the offense.
While I originally completed the NIP/172 form based on my best recollection at the time, I am now able to provide accurate information regarding the driver.
This discrepancy was an honest mistake, as my husband and I shared driving responsibilities during our return journey from holiday, and the form was completed in good faith.
Postal Error Due to Expired Stamp – The invalidation of non-barcoded stamps in July 2023 was an administrative change I was unaware of. As I rarely use postal services, I unknowingly attached an expired stamp, which led to the form being undelivered.
The returned envelope and its markings (see Appendix A) clearly show that my attempt to send the form was made in good faith.
I took immediate corrective steps upon discovering this issue, demonstrating my commitment to resolving the matter.
Request for Consideration

I hope the court will consider the unforeseen postal issue and my honest mistake in initially identifying myself as the driver. It was never my intention to avoid responsibility or to delay the process. I have made every effort to rectify the situation promptly upon realizing the issues and remain fully cooperative in providing accurate information.

Thank you for your understanding and consideration in reviewing these mitigating circumstances.

I don't think that the OP has indicated that they intend to plead guilty, beyond drafting "mitigation".

That said, I would happily string the OP from the nearest lamp post (well perhaps not the nearest - preferably somewhere downwind) for continuing to adopt the persona of "we", and for drip feeding the fact that the nomination that was not served was also incorrect.

I would perhaps add that if anyone has any wizard wheezes, they can keep them to themselves, or I will need to find more lamp posts.