DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 116434--------------------------------------------------
Identity theft leading to failure to respond
DIR By: appleseed
Date: April 20, 2026, 8:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve recently been summoned to Court (hearing at the end of May)
for failing to provide driver information (s172).
I plead not guilty to the SJPN on the basis that I never
received the original NIP or any reminders because they were
sent to an address I moved out of more than two years ago. I
only became aware of the situation when I found the Single
Justice Procedure Notice in the post box (for context, my
partner still owns our old house but it is tenanted and so we
are no longer resident there; it was by pure coincidence that I
visited the property before the SJPN expired).
I don't own a car, but do have a UK licence on which the address
is my current address, registered on the electoral roll, all
bank accounts registered to my new address, etc.
For some additional context, I had my identity stolen in 2023
whilst living at my old address, and it has since been used to
open various bank accounts in my name. The latest incarnation is
providing my details in response to various offences when
requested by the police. One force managed to forward a NIP to
my new address to allow me to respond, but seems this one
didn't.
Upon receiving the notice, I contacted the police force in
question immediately and:
* Provided my current address and evidence of when I moved
* Confirmed I have no connection to the vehicle in the notices
* Flagged that I believe my identity (driving licence details)
has been misused, including in responding to the original notice
The police acknowledged I didn’t receive the notices, but are
proceeding on the basis that the registered keeper named me and
the matter is now in front of the court.
My understanding is that the key defence here is that it was
“not reasonably practicable” for me to respond within the
required timeframe, given I never received the notice.
I’m trying to sense-check whether this sounds like a fairly
straightforward defence in practice, or it’s worth getting a
solicitor involved ahead of the hearing.
I’m comfortable presenting the facts and evidence myself, but
conscious that these things can turn on technicalities.
Thanks in advance.
#Post#: 116451--------------------------------------------------
Re: Identity theft leading to failure to respond
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: April 20, 2026, 9:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The nomination from the RK arguably has no evidential value.
A notice is deemed served when it is delivered to the
addressee's "last known address", so on the face of it, even
though the nomination was fraudulent, you were obliged to
provide any information that was in your power to give and that
might lead to the identification of the driver (which would have
been that you had no knowledge of or connection with the vehicle
in question - and arguably the fact that you have been the
victim of identity theft, etc.).
Not receiving or being aware of the notice is not in and of
itself a complete defence. In Whiteside, Mr Whiteside who was
the owner and RK of the vehicle in question was staying away
from his home address for some time, and the court found, on the
facts of that case, that it would have been reasonably
practicable to ensure that any such notices were brought to his
attention, either by having someone else open them and relay the
contents to him, or forward them to where he was staying at the
time.
I would suggest (if a particularly mendacious prosecutor were to
suggest that a similar obligation would have applied to you),
that putting measures in place to ensure that notices concerning
vehicles that you had no connection to and which were generated
as the result of fraudulent nominations would wall massively
what might be considered to be reasonable.
#Post#: 116458--------------------------------------------------
Re: Identity theft leading to failure to respond
DIR By: appleseed
Date: April 20, 2026, 10:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your response.
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> A notice is deemed served when it is delivered to the
addressee's "last known address", so on the face of it, even
though the nomination was fraudulent, you were obliged to
provide any information that was in your power to give.
--- End Quote ---
This is fair and I am ultimately clear on my obligations - had I
received the notices at my current address, I would've replied
to them (as I did when I became aware).
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> Not receiving or being aware of the notice is not in and of
itself a complete defence.
--- End Quote ---
You are right, and I suppose the difference in Whitehouse
(following a very cursory glance) is that the notice was sent to
an address where he was reasonably expected to receive it.
Ultimately, it was not reasonable for me to respond to the NIP
because it was sent to an address I vacated two years ago.
My understanding is that for service to be valid at a "last
known address" (if this in fact becomes the prosecution's
defence), the claimant must have been unable to ascertain a
defendant's current residence; I'm not confident this can be
true given the number of public records which refer to my
current address.
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> I would suggest (if a particularly mendacious prosecutor were
to suggest that a similar obligation would have applied to you),
that putting measures in place to ensure that notices concerning
vehicles that you had no connection to and which were generated
as the result of fraudulent nominations would wall massively
what might be considered to be reasonable.
--- End Quote ---
Believe me when I say I have contacted both the DVLA and the
various police forces who have been supplied with my information
to understand how I can prevent this from happening. Aside from
hoping that they actually review public records to find my new
address before moving to the SJP, it seems they have no answers
(very happy to hear any suggestions!).
Many thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
#Post#: 116469--------------------------------------------------
Re: Identity theft leading to failure to respond
DIR By: 666
Date: April 20, 2026, 10:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: appleseed link ---
>
>
>
> My understanding is that for service to be valid at a "last
known address" (if this in fact becomes the prosecution's
defence), the claimant must have been unable to ascertain a
defendant's current residence; I'm not confident this can be
true given the number of public records which refer to my
current address.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
When a NIP and/or S172 request is to be sent to the Registered
Keeper, the "last known address" is taken as that shown on the
DVLA record at the date of the (alleged) offence. In most cases
that is correct.
The police are not required to trawl other records on the
off-chance that it might be wrong, and in any case it would be
impractical. The DVLA record ties a particular individual to the
vehicle in question. There may be many others with the same
name, e.g. John Smith, and no easy way to know which John
Smith's new address they are seeking.
#Post#: 116470--------------------------------------------------
Re: Identity theft leading to failure to respond
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: April 20, 2026, 10:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: 666 link ---
>
> [quote author=appleseed link=topic=10578.msg116458#msg116458
date=1776697618]
>
>
> My understanding is that for service to be valid at a "last
known address" (if this in fact becomes the prosecution's
defence), the claimant must have been unable to ascertain a
defendant's current residence; I'm not confident this can be
true given the number of public records which refer to my
current address.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
When a NIP and/or S172 request is to be sent to the Registered
Keeper, the "last known address" is taken as that shown on the
DVLA record at the date of the (alleged) offence. In most cases
that is correct.
The police are not required to trawl other records on the
off-chance that it might be wrong, and in any case it would be
impractical. The DVLA record ties a particular individual to the
vehicle in question. There may be many others with the same
name, e.g. John Smith, and no easy way to know which John
Smith's new address they are seeking.
[/quote]
Which is all very good, but irrelevant if the OP wasn’t the RK.
That being said, the fact that he uses “claimant” rather
suggests that he is confusing criminal and civil procedural
rules.
#Post#: 116471--------------------------------------------------
Re: Identity theft leading to failure to respond
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: April 20, 2026, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The criteria for "last known address" is broadly whether the
sender had reason to doubt that the address provided was still
current, and then the practicalities of tracking down the
current address.
On the face of it, it seems perverse that a notice sent to
somewhere you haven't lived at for 2 years can be considered
your "last known address" (presumably you haven't provided the
identity thieves with an updated address...), but that is where
the reasonably practicable defence comes in.
#Post#: 116564--------------------------------------------------
Re: Identity theft leading to failure to respond
DIR By: Steve_999
Date: April 21, 2026, 8:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have people been discussiing the issue of "last known address"
when the address used by the Police in this instance is just one
provided by a third party who appear to be guilty of PCOJ. In
this instance I doubt a court would view that information as
being "the last known address" in this instance.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1