DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101446--------------------------------------------------
Received a Single Justice procedure Notice for not providing the
requested information.
By: nihalramsheed Date: December 8, 2025, 6:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
I have received a Single Justice procedure Notice (SJPN) for
not providing the requested drivers information.
I have rent a vehicle from Turo on June 2025. And I was driving
the car, I was an approved driver on Turo. But I only have an
Indian License and not a UK drivers License. I've been made
aware now that I cannot legally drive in UK after more than 12
months I've been in UK. And in this case I've been more than 12
months at the time of offence.
I received a letter to provide the drivers information for
speeding, for which I have completed the form and sent it via
DPD. I've received the SJPN last week stating that I have failed
to provide the information requested. And upon checking, DPD has
delivered the post to a neighbour.
I'm not sure what should I do. Shall I plea guilty? And
approximately how much would be the fine for this. Please
advise.
Or should I not plea guilty? I've read about 'the deal' in this
forum. But would it work for me as I don't have a UK drivers
license.
Any help on this will much appreciated. Thank you so much.
#Post#: 101462--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received a Single Justice procedure Notice for not providing
the requested information.
By: andy_foster Date: December 8, 2025, 7:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As regards the s. 172 offence
Subject to the statutory defences (reasonable practicability),
the offence is committed if the required information is not
provided within the 28 days.
Unless there is a contrary intention in the relevant legislation
(s. 172 RTA 1988), s. 7 Interpretation Act 1978 provides that
the requirement is satisfied when the information is delivered
to the addressee's last known address, not when it is sent.
There is no reason to believe that there was a contrary
intention in s. 172, as it contains a defence that would prevent
failure of delivery constituting a strict liability offence.
So, on the face of it, the elements of the offence are made out,
and unless you have a defence, you are guilty.
That said, your tale leaves two obvious questions unanswered -
why use DPD for the response, and more importantly what exactly
do you mean when you say that it was delivered to a neighbour?
If your answers to the above do not change the position, the
next thing to look at is the availability of any defences.
If it was not reasonably practicable to provide the information,
and if you can persuade the court of this on the balance of
probabilities, then you have a defence - which means even though
the information was not provided (delivered), you are not
guilty.
The question would appear to be what does and does not
constitute reasonable practicability. Mostly, this would be for
the court to decide on whatever facts they find.
At one end of the spectrum, if you properly posted the response
and had no way of knowing that it had not been delivered, and no
reason to believe that it had not been delivered, then sending
multiple copies of the response just in case the first got lost
would be beyond what is considered reasonable.
At the other end, if you posted the response, received a
reminder saying that no response had been received, and then
buried your head in the sand on the basis that you had satisfied
your responsibilities by sending it and it's not your fault if
they didn't receive it (which would be mostly incorrect), then
unless you attended the same lodge as the judge, no court would
find that responding to the reminder would have been beyond
reasonable practicability or reasonable diligence - for the
purposes of this statutory defence, there seems to be a fair
amount of overlap between the concepts.
Obviously, you could have checked the tracking sooner. There are
a lot of things that you could potentially have done, many of
which would fall far beyond what could reasonably be expected.
The question is whether or not that would apply to checking the
tracking, and the answer is likely to lie largely in whether
there was any perceived need to do so beyond idle curiosity.
Were you surprised not to receive anything before the SJPN after
sending off the information?
As regards doing 'the deal'.
First question is whether the speeding charge is listed on the
SJPN. Unless you have been charged with the speeding offence,
you can't do a deal to plead guilty to an offence you haven't
been charged with.
Not having a UK licence should not stop you from being able to
do the deal - a 'ghost licence' would be set up for the points
to go on.
#Post#: 101476--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received a Single Justice procedure Notice for not providing
the requested information.
By: nihalramsheed Date: December 8, 2025, 8:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Andy,
Thank you so much for your very detailed and helpful response.
I used DPD because I was approaching the 28-day deadline to
respond to the request for driver information and I mistakenly
believed a courier service like DPD would be faster and more
reliable than standard Royal Mail to ensure timely delivery.
I only tracked the package after receiving the SJPN last week.
The DPD tracking shows a photograph of where it was delivered,
the name of the person who received it, and a note stating it
was "delivered to neighbour."
You asked if I was surprised not to receive anything before the
SJPN. In all honesty, yes, I should have checked why I hadn't
received confirmation or further correspondence, but I didn't.
This is my first-ever offence and my first time dealing with any
kind of penalty or legal matter, so I've been quite naive about
the process. I completely agree that I should have been more
diligent.
Based on your analysis, it seems the core question for a 'not
guilty' plea would be whether my failure to check the DPD
tracking and send a follow-up response, even after the deadline,
was not reasonably practicable. Given that I only discovered the
non-delivery after the SJPN arrived, I'm concerned about
successfully arguing this defence
To be clear, the SJPN only lists the failure to provide driver
information (s. 172 offence). The speeding offence is NOT
listed.
My biggest fear is that if I plead not guilty and attempt to
argue the s. 172 defence, the court will then become aware that
at the time of the original speeding offence, I was driving
illegally (I had been in the UK for over 12 months, and my
Indian licence was no longer valid for driving here). Would
arguing the s. 172 offence risk having the illegal driving come
back to bite me with a separate charge, even though only the s.
172 is currently on the SJPN?
If pleading guilty is the easiest option to contain the damage
and avoid raising the issue of my licence status, I'm inclined
to do that. Approximately how much would the fine be for a
guilty plea for the s. 172 offence
Thank you for your valuable input
#Post#: 101490--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received a Single Justice procedure Notice for not providing
the requested information.
By: andy_foster Date: December 8, 2025, 9:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please don't try to agree with things that I never said.
#Post#: 101494--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received a Single Justice procedure Notice for not providing
the requested information.
By: 666 Date: December 8, 2025, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, the guideline fine is Band B, that is a weeks 'relevant'
income.
That would be subject to 33% discount for a guilty plea, but
also a 40% 'victim' surcharge and prosecution costs of c£90.
You should also be aware that the resulting MS90 endorsement
code is frowned upon by insurers, and you will see hefty
increases in your premiums for the next few years.
#Post#: 101499--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received a Single Justice procedure Notice for not providing
the requested information.
By: andy_foster Date: December 8, 2025, 9:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is that your final answer?
Do you want 50/50 - to choose between your original answer and
"Band C - starting point 150% RWI - reduced by 33% to 100% RWI
for an early guilty plea (+costs, surcharge and ticketmaster
fee)"?
#Post#: 101550--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received a Single Justice procedure Notice for not providing
the requested information.
By: NewJudge Date: December 8, 2025, 11:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]The speeding offence isn't shown on the SJPN simply
because at the moment, the prosecution have no idea who was
driving so it's imppoosible for them to charge anyone with
this.[/quote]
It is common practice for the police to "dual charge" those
accused of a s172 offence (though occasionally, as here, they
don't).
Without that practice the "deal" that is often recommended would
be impossible. The very reason the police lay a s172 charge is
because they do not know who was driving.
#Post#: 101553--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received a Single Justice procedure Notice for not providing
the requested information.
By: nihalramsheed Date: December 8, 2025, 11:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you all for your valuable responses.
What I just realised is that it has been more than 6 months
after the speeding incident occurred. So Am I right in thinking
that there would not be any additional offense other than s172
as the others would be time barred?
Thanks
#Post#: 101558--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received a Single Justice procedure Notice for not providing
the requested information.
By: andy_foster Date: December 8, 2025, 11:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Court proccedings (SJPN and Written Charge) would need to have
been issued within 6 months of the offence in question. Whilst
it is technically possible that this could have been done
separately to the s. 172 charge, and be winging its way to you
in the post as we speak, it wouldn't have been. The speeding
typically times out at least a month before any s. 172 offence
would, and the timing of the s. 172 charge is usually at the
last minute for any speeding charge.
*****************************************************