DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 107810--------------------------------------------------
Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal gli
tched.
By: indigo2026 Date: January 29, 2026, 2:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Context: My wife was caught speeding in our car (registered in
my name). I received the Notice to Intended Prosecution (NIP)
and tried to respond online to nominate her as the driver.
However, the portal gave me an error saying a response had
"already been submitted."
In the chaos of trying to fix this, I misplaced the paperwork,
but I didn't give up. I’ve spent months persistently trying to
contact the police to explain the situation and provide her
details. Despite my efforts, I’m now being charged with:
1.Failing to provide driver information (Section 172)
2.Speeding
I have a full timeline of my attempts to contact them. How do I
best present this "reasonable diligence" defence to get the S172
dropped?
See timeline below:
21 July 2025 - Wife caught speeding
7 August 2025 - my Brother receives PCN to my UK address whilst
I am away on holiday in France. He tells me it looks serious,
and I ask him to open it on my behalf.
7 August 2025 - I immediately access the portal to try to
respond. When I log in, a message says I have already responded.
Odd. I decided to wait until I got back to the UK to send the
paper copy back.
10 August 2025 - Try to access the portal and message pops up
saying I’ve already responded.
25 August 2025 - Back home and can’t find paperwork.
26th August 2025 - I try logging into the portal again. But
message pops up stating I’ve already responded. I contact the
Central ticket office, explain that I don’t have the paperwork
and confirmed that Josephine was the driver of the car. Am given
a generic response (we will contact you in 5 working days)
I also email the central ticket office directly (as opposed to
going through the website) I explain the situation and include a
screenshot of the portal telling me that I’ve already responded.
No response.
I try ringing the CTO directly, however it leads to a voicemail.
I leave a voicemail on the system, explaining the situation, in
detail. (Josephine was driving the car, I’ve tried the portal
but it won’t let me in as I have apparently already responded,
and then reiterate that I’ve lost the paperwork.)
I read the news, and follow current affairs and I fully
understand (and am sympathetic to the fact) that policing is
very stretched at the moment, so I rationalise that there is
most likely a serious delay in backlog of work that the police
have to go through.
12 September 2025 - I have still not had a response, therefore I
‘reply’ to my own email to the CTO from the 26th August stating
‘ I havent received a reply for this? Please could you confirm
receipt?’.
4th November 2025 - I receive my first reply from West Midlands
Police. They apologise for the delay in replying to my email,
state that they have checked their system and that there may
have been technical issues with the Online Portal when I
attempted to submit my response. They then go on to state that I
will need to fill out the relevant sections and return the
paperwork to the CTO through the post. A copy of the notice will
be sent out to me tomorrow in case I no longer have the
original.
4th November 2025 - I reply in less than 10 minutes. Explaining
that I’ll try and respond on the portal again, and failing that
will complete the paperwork they were sending out the following
day. I also asked for clarification that I wasn’t going to be
penalised for the failure of the computer system as I didn’t
want it to be flagged as a late response.
19th November 2025 - After no reply, I ‘reply’ to the last email
I sent the CTO, explaining that I havent received the promised
paperwork and whether they could please resend.
That afternoon the CTO replies, they explain that they note my
comments and were aware that there are technical issues with the
online portal. They advised me to complete my paperwork and
return it to them. They added that a failure to do so may result
in the matter being passed to the court to be dealt with.
21st November 2025 - I reply on the email thread, explaining
that in my original email, and in my last email I had explained
to them that I don’t have the paperwork and please could they
resend.
That afternoon the CTO replies with the same generic message
that I received a few days prior. They explain that they note my
comments and were aware that there are technical issues with the
online portal. They advised me to complete my paperwork and
return it to them. They added that a failure to do so may result
in the matter being passed to the court to be dealt with.
24th November 2025 - I reply, explaining again, that I have told
them through various means that I don’t have the paperwork. I
then asked for the following two actions:
Please could they send the paperwork ASAP.
Please can this be escalated to a senior member of staff as a
matter of urgency.
I explained that it’s not my fault the portal isn’t working as
it should be, the whole thing has been hanging over my head and
I would like it sorted as soon as possible.
No reply.
28 January 2026 - I receive a SJPN in the post.
Thank you so much for reading. What advice would you give to me
in this situation?
#Post#: 107811--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: andy_foster Date: January 29, 2026, 2:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Forget the form, forget the portal, what information did you
actually provide? Providing a vague summary such as "confirmed
that Josephine was the driver" is a waste of everyone's time.
In your initial version, you said that you misplaced the
paperwork. In your chronology, you were trying to use the portal
in France and in the next entry you couldn't find the paperwork
when you got home.
#Post#: 107813--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: indigo2026 Date: January 29, 2026, 2:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=andy_foster link=topic=9715.msg107811#msg107811
date=1769675024]
Forget the form, forget the portal, what information did you
actually provide? Providing a vague summary such as "confirmed
that Josephine was the driver" is a waste of everyone's time.
In your initial version, you said that you misplaced the
paperwork. In your chronology, you were trying to use the portal
in France and in the next entry you couldn't find the paperwork
when you got home.
[/quote]
Hi Andy, Thank you for your reply!
1. In each correspondence I wrote that Josephine was the driver
of the car at the time, I also mentioned this verbally when I
left a voicemail on their system. What information would you
suggest I should have provided?
2. The letter was delivered to my address in the UK whilst I was
away on holiday in France. My brother saw the letter, thought it
looked serious, so asked me whether he should open it for me. I
confirmed he could, and he sent me a photo of the first page.
So, as I was in France, I logged into the portal to try to
respond straight away. When I arrived back from my holiday in
france with the intention of submitting the paper copy, however
my brother had missplaced the letter, meaning I couldn't find
it.
Hopefully this answers your questions
#Post#: 107815--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: DWMB2 Date: January 29, 2026, 3:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I understand you're obviously not going to (nor should you) post
her full name on here, but did you provide her full name and
address at any point?
#Post#: 107816--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: indigo2026 Date: January 29, 2026, 3:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=DWMB2 link=topic=9715.msg107815#msg107815
date=1769677565]
I understand you're obviously not going to (nor should you) post
her full name on here, but did you provide her full name and
address at any point?
[/quote]
In all correspondence, I referred to her in her full name. I
didn't provide an address, however for what it's worth, I've
just checked and in my early correspondence, I confirmed my
address, and then a line down, informed them that my wife
Josephine (insert second name) was the driver. Perhaps this was
a mistake on my part to not specifically say that she lived with
me. Do you think this could hurt my case?
#Post#: 107831--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: andy_foster Date: January 29, 2026, 4:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There were potentially two separate potwntial defences - whether
it was reasonably practicable to provide the required
information, and whether you had complied with the substance of
the requirement.
As you had a facsimile of the first page of the NIP/s.172 it
would be difficult to argue that it would not have been
reasonably practicable to name the driver in the form of a
signed letter, or indeed an email for that matter. Whether the
police would have "accepted" either of those has little bearing
on the law - the police are entitled to make reasonable
requirements as to the information to be provided, and you as
the addressee are required to satisfy the substance of such
requirements. For example, if you were the driver, they would
need a signed response from you (in writing), as that would then
become admissible evidence in a potential speeding prosecution.
As you were not the driver, your nomination is merely
information to direct the next notice, and also to enable the
nominated person to be sufficiently identified to instigate a
prosecution if they failed to satisfy the requirements of their
notice.
Typically, the police ask for the name, address, date of birth
and driving licence number of the driver. You started this
thread 2 hours ago and, despite the amount of dentistry
required, now you know what information would have been
"required" - so unless the bench are sufficiently aggravated by
the police's apparant incompetence, reasonable practicability
still seems like a long shot as regards the "missing" details.
That still leaves the question of substantial compliance. Was
her full name, with a presumption that she resides at the same
address, sufficient? I would suggest that a quick PNC/DVLA
search would show that there was only one Mrs Josephine
Bonaparte living at that address, and fill in the blanks.
Whether a bench would agree on the day 8s another matter, but
your options are either to defend the s.172 or somply take the 6
points on the chin. The speeding charge us about as relevant as
ehat ypu had for breakfast.
If someone can dig up Jones v DPP(2004) that might assist the OP
#Post#: 107847--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: indigo2026 Date: January 29, 2026, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=andy_foster link=topic=9715.msg107831#msg107831
date=1769682056]
There were potentially two separate potwntial defences - whether
it was reasonably practicable to provide the required
information, and whether you had complied with the substance of
the requirement.
As you had a facsimile of the first page of the NIP/s.172 it
would be difficult to argue that it would not have been
reasonably practicable to name the driver in the form of a
signed letter, or indeed an email for that matter. Whether the
police would have "accepted" either of those has little bearing
on the law - the police are entitled to make reasonable
requirements as to the information to be provided, and you as
the addressee are required to satisfy the substance of such
requirements. For example, if you were the driver, they would
need a signed response from you (in writing), as that would then
become admissible evidence in a potential speeding prosecution.
As you were not the driver, your nomination is merely
information to direct the next notice, and also to enable the
nominated person to be sufficiently identified to instigate a
prosecution if they failed to satisfy the requirements of their
notice.
Typically, the police ask for the name, address, date of birth
and driving licence number of the driver. You started this
thread 2 hours ago and, despite the amount of dentistry
required, now you know what information would have been
"required" - so unless the bench are sufficiently aggravated by
the police's apparant incompetence, reasonable practicability
still seems like a long shot as regards the "missing" details.
That still leaves the question of substantial compliance. Was
her full name, with a presumption that she resides at the same
address, sufficient? I would suggest that a quick PNC/DVLA
search would show that there was only one Mrs Josephine
Bonaparte living at that address, and fill in the blanks.
Whether a bench would agree on the day 8s another matter, but
your options are either to defend the s.172 or somply take the 6
points on the chin. The speeding charge us about as relevant as
ehat ypu had for breakfast.
If someone can dig up Jones v DPP(2004) that might assist the OP
[/quote]
Thank you for the detailed reply. I really appreciate it.
So forgive me if I’m wrong here, but my defence rests on two
pillars:
Substantial Compliance and Reasonable Diligence.
Substantial Compliance: I named the driver (my wife) and
provided my address as her place of residence as early as
August. This gave the police everything they needed to issue a
fresh notice to her.
Reasonable Diligence: My timeline proves I did everything within
my power to comply. I attempted to use the portal (which was
broken), called the office, and sent multiple emails. The
'failure' to provide the information on the specific physical
form was a direct result of the police failing to send a
replacement as promised, despite my repeated requests.
I can provide evidence of all the communication I've had with
the police, so with this in mind, and the information I've
provided. Do you think there's a reasonable chance that my
argument would stand in court?
I can't help but feel a sense of injustice here.
#Post#: 107855--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: 666 Date: January 29, 2026, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=indigo2026 link=topic=9715.msg107847#msg107847
date=1769687204]
[quote author=andy_foster link=topic=9715.msg107831#msg107831
date=1769682056]
There were potentially two separate potwntial defences - whether
it was reasonably practicable to provide the required
information, and whether you had complied with the substance of
the requirement.
As you had a facsimile of the first page of the NIP/s.172 it
would be difficult to argue that it would not have been
reasonably practicable to name the driver in the form of a
signed letter, or indeed an email for that matter. Whether the
police would have "accepted" either of those has little bearing
on the law - the police are entitled to make reasonable
requirements as to the information to be provided, and you as
the addressee are required to satisfy the substance of such
requirements. For example, if you were the driver, they would
need a signed response from you (in writing), as that would then
become admissible evidence in a potential speeding prosecution.
As you were not the driver, your nomination is merely
information to direct the next notice, and also to enable the
nominated person to be sufficiently identified to instigate a
prosecution if they failed to satisfy the requirements of their
notice.
Typically, the police ask for the name, address, date of birth
and driving licence number of the driver. You started this
thread 2 hours ago and, despite the amount of dentistry
required, now you know what information would have been
"required" - so unless the bench are sufficiently aggravated by
the police's apparant incompetence, reasonable practicability
still seems like a long shot as regards the "missing" details.
That still leaves the question of substantial compliance. Was
her full name, with a presumption that she resides at the same
address, sufficient? I would suggest that a quick PNC/DVLA
search would show that there was only one Mrs Josephine
Bonaparte living at that address, and fill in the blanks.
Whether a bench would agree on the day 8s another matter, but
your options are either to defend the s.172 or somply take the 6
points on the chin. The speeding charge us about as relevant as
ehat ypu had for breakfast.
If someone can dig up Jones v DPP(2004) that might assist the OP
[/quote]
Substantial Compliance: I named the driver (my wife) and
provided my address as her place of residence as early as
August. This gave the police everything they needed to issue a
fresh notice to her.
Reasonable Diligence: My timeline proves I did everything within
my power to comply. I attempted to use the portal (which was
broken), called the office, and sent multiple emails. The
'failure' to provide the information on the specific physical
form was a direct result of the police failing to send a
replacement as promised, despite my repeated requests.
[/quote]
Compliance. In your earlier post you said "I didn't provide an
address", and subsequently suggested that the police should have
assumed co-habitation.
Diligence: there is no requirement to use the specific form. A
letter suffices.
#Post#: 107857--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: andy_foster Date: January 29, 2026, 6:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As I already posted...
[quote author=andy_foster link=topic=9715.msg107831#msg107831
date=1769682056]
Whether a bench would agree on the day is another matter, but
your options are either to defend the s.172 or simply take the 6
points on the chin. The speeding charge us about as relevant as
what you had for breakfast.
[/quote]
Previously you indicated that you provided your wife's full
name, but not her address. Now you appear to be telling us that
that you specifically told them that she lives at the same
address as you.
Reasonable diligence applies when you don't know who was
driving. Reasonable practicability applies when it is not
reasonably practicable to provide the information. However, in
either case, it is not a question of whether you had made a
reasonable effort, it is whether you could have provided the
information without exceeding what could reasonably be expected
of you.
Technically, substantial compliance is not a defence insofar as
the offence is not made out. The law does not require you to use
the form provided, as long as you satisfy the substance of the
stated requirement.
N.B. Subject to any statutory defences (such as reasonable
practicability), an offence is committed if the information is
not provided at the expiration of 28 days beginning with the
date of service of the notice (deemed to be 2 working days after
posting for first class post, unless the contrary is proven).
You mentioned that your brother received the NIP on 7th August.
Receipt is irrelevant. Date of service (delivery) is relevant if
it can be proven, otherwise the date of posting (presumably the
issue date) is what matters. If you complied with the substance
of the requirement within 27 days of the date of service (deemed
or proven), you are golden. If not, can you show that it would
not have been reasonably practicable to do so within that time?
.
#Post#: 107876--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: NewJudge Date: January 29, 2026, 7:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]If someone can dig up Jones v DPP(2004) that might assist
the OP[/quote]
In Jones vs DPP (2004) the principal issue was the complete
failure to identify the driver. Mr Jones, the recipient of the
s172 request, stated that the car was used by a number of
drivers and he could not determine which one was driving at the
specified time.
But as an aside the Deputy District Judge who convicted him in
the Magistrates’ Court held that as he had replied by letter and
not used the official form provided by the police, he had failed
to comply with the statutory requirement in that respect. He
based this on an earlier precedent, DPP vs Broomfield.
However, the appellant court in Jones found that he had complied
by providing the required information (all bar the name of the
driver) in a written and signed letter.
This had a bearing on the appeal because the DDJ had used that
alleged failure to support his adverse credibility finding when
deciding the substantial issue of failing to identify the
driver:
HTML https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff72560d03e7f57ea885c
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page