DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 122708--------------------------------------------------
time shown on notice of intended prosection may be incorrect
DIR By: zebedee
Date: June 23, 2026, 3:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm fairly sure that the time shown on my letter from the Met is
wrong, possibly one hour out. I've already replied online to say
I was driving, but I'm pretty certain that at the time shown I
was miles away. Is there a justifiable defence here?
#Post#: 122712--------------------------------------------------
Re: time shown on notice of intended prosection may be incorrect
DIR By: BertB
Date: June 23, 2026, 4:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Generally the best time (no pun) to point this out would have
been when naming the driver. Usually advice is to wait until 14
days have elapsed from the date of offence and then reply with a
cover letter giving your details but pointing out that while you
are the RK and driver of the vehicle, the vehicle itself was at
such and such location at the time specified.
There are no guarantees of success, but we have heard of forces
then dropping the prosecution due to a processing error. If you
have all of the reference numbers still, you could try emailing
or phoning the CTO involved and tell them that although you
nominated yourself the car was elsewhere, etc.
Otherwise the only other course you have is to reject all out of
court settlement offers and plead NG in order to put your case
across. The problem is, if it is a GMT/BST error, the Magistrate
may allow this to be corrected under the slip rule. Which then
makes the day out very expensive.
What are we talking here, Speeding? What was the alleged speed
and limit?
#Post#: 122719--------------------------------------------------
Re: time shown on notice of intended prosection may be incorrect
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: June 23, 2026, 5:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Tell me that you couldn't be bothered to read the "READ THIS
FIRST" sticky, without telling me that you couldn't be bothered
to read the "READ THIS FIRST" sticky.
#Post#: 122721--------------------------------------------------
Re: time shown on notice of intended prosection may be incorrect
DIR By: zebedee
Date: June 23, 2026, 5:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry - but I did read the READ THIS FIRST sticky. I have now
re-read it. Which bit are you certain I have overlooked?
#Post#: 122725--------------------------------------------------
Re: time shown on notice of intended prosection may be incorrect
DIR By: BertB
Date: June 23, 2026, 5:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Minor errors in a NIP, which do not negate the purpose of
enabling the driver to recall the incident which gave rise to
the allegation, do not void the NIP. E.g. if you know that the
location on the NIP is wrong because you know you got caught
just past the bus stop, the NIP is still valid
--- End Quote ---
Did you drive down that road at all that day but at a different
time, maybe by an hour or so?
#Post#: 122739--------------------------------------------------
Re: time shown on notice of intended prosection may be incorrect
DIR By: zebedee
Date: June 23, 2026, 7:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The date and time of an incident are not, in my opinion, minor
errors.
#Post#: 122740--------------------------------------------------
Re: time shown on notice of intended prosection may be incorrect
DIR By: BertB
Date: June 23, 2026, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That is irrelevant to be honest. It is whether a court would
share that opinion based upon the facts. One of them being did
you drive down that road on that day at roughly 1hr time
difference. You did, obviously, otherwise how would you know
that the time is 1hr out for the location given?
You never mentioned anything wrong with the date of offence.
Your easiest approach still is to email or contact the CTO
involved informing them of their error and state that you can
evidence (assuming you can) that your vehicle was elsewhere at
the time. They may drop it or they may push ahead and say you
will have to dispute this formally.
#Post#: 122746--------------------------------------------------
Re: time shown on notice of intended prosection may be incorrect
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: June 23, 2026, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Does the notice mention, perchance, "GMT" after the time stated?
If so, and the time stated is one hour earlier than when the
incident occurred (which you seem to recall) that would explain
the "error" and so end any arguments.
If not, you must think this through.
Though it may not seem like it, you have been sent two distinct
documents.
The first is the Notice of Intended Prosecution (“NIP). This
must satisfy the requirements of s1 of the Road Traffic
Offenders’ Act which says that a NIP must provide “…the nature
of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is
alleged to have been committed,..”
As above, you could try arguing that the NIP does not satisfy
that requirement and so you cannot be convicted. The important
thing here is what is mentioned in “Read me first”:
"Minor errors in a NIP, which do not negate the purpose of
enabling the driver to recall the incident which gave rise to
the allegation, do not void the NIP."
You seem to have a good recollection of the event. If you
attempt to defend the charge on the basis of a deficient NIP you
will almost certainly be asked, in court, whether or not you
have that recollection. Unless you want to commit perjury
(potentially turning a fine and points into jail time) you will
have to say that you do. Having done that, the court will almost
certainly find that the NIP fulfilled its purpose.
The second document you have is a “request for driver’s
details”, issued under s172 of the Road Traffic Act. You could
begin your response to that as BertB suggests, simply stating
that your car was not at the location at the time stated, and
see how they react. Waiting 14 days will make the issue of a
second compliant NIP impossible. However, because of my view
(above) of the validity of the one you have, I don’t believe it
will make much difference.
The risk you take here is if you fanny about too much with
making a valid response to the request, the police may simply
proceed to prosecute you under s172. I would not rate your
chances of successfully defending such a charge (especially
bearing in mind the view I believe the court would take on the
NIP). The good news is that in the event of an insufficient
response to that request, the speeding charge is a dead duck.
The bad news is that a conviction for a s172 offence carries a
hefty fine, six points and an endorsement code (MS90) which will
see your insurance premiums considerably increased for up to
five years.
My advice would be to make an approach to the police to see if
they are willing to discontinue the matter because of this
discrepancy. If they are not, I would accept any offer of an
out-of-court disposal they might make.
What was the alleged offence?
#Post#: 122757--------------------------------------------------
Re: time shown on notice of intended prosection may be incorrect
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: June 23, 2026, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For sh*ts and giggles, I would question whether his false
admission to being the driver of the vehicle in question at the
time and date in question, would leave him open to a charge
under s. 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 - although presumably as long
as he thinks it doesn't apply he will be ok.
#Post#: 122830--------------------------------------------------
Re: time shown on notice of intended prosection may be incorrect
DIR By: zebedee
Date: June 24, 2026, 8:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As I did drive down that road on that day I'll just suck it up.
I can't be 100% sure I am wrong about the time - but it does
surprise me if it is indeed the case.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page