DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 107882--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: indigo2026 Date: January 29, 2026, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=andy_foster link=topic=9715.msg107857#msg107857
date=1769688594]
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?
.
[/quote]
Apologies, I stand by what I originally said, I provided her
name only. Sorry for the typo on my latest reply.
I've gone back and checked the dates, the NIP was sent and dated
the 07/08/2025. I have looked at the email trail and I have an
email to the police on the 26/08/2025 (9 days before the
deadline) stating that the driver of the car was my wife,
Josephine Bonaparte.
#Post#: 107897--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: ManxTom Date: January 29, 2026, 9:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@indigo2026 - "Apologies, I stand by what I originally said, I
provided her name only. Sorry for the typo on my latest reply.
I've gone back and checked the dates, the NIP was sent and dated
the 07/08/2025. I have looked at the email trail and I have an
email to the police on the 26/08/2025 (9 days before the
deadline) stating that the driver of the car was my wife,
Josephine Bonaparte."
So the date of the alleged speeding is 21 July 2025 and the NIP
was issued(?) on 07 August 2025?
How do you know the date of the NIP if your brother lost(!) it?
Presumably from the photo he took of the front page?
#Post#: 107899--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: indigo2026 Date: January 29, 2026, 9:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=ManxTom link=topic=9715.msg107897#msg107897
date=1769699068]
[member=8172]indigo2026[/member] - "Apologies, I stand by what
I originally said, I provided her name only. Sorry for the typo
on my latest reply.
I've gone back and checked the dates, the NIP was sent and dated
the 07/08/2025. I have looked at the email trail and I have an
email to the police on the 26/08/2025 (9 days before the
deadline) stating that the driver of the car was my wife,
Josephine Bonaparte."
So the date of the alleged speeding is 21 July 2025 and the NIP
was issued(?) on 07 August 2025?
How do you know the date of the NIP if your brother lost(!) it?
Presumably from the photo he took of the front page?
[/quote]
Yes, and yes. (It's worth noting here that the car is leased)
And I know the dates from the photo he took of the front page,
yes
#Post#: 107906--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: FuzzyDuck Date: January 29, 2026, 10:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=indigo2026 link=topic=9715.msg107899#msg107899
date=1769700959]
Yes, and yes. (It's worth noting here that the car is leased)
[/quote]
So this was not the first NIP, as the RK is either the leasing
company or a finance company.
#Post#: 107907--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: andy_foster Date: January 29, 2026, 10:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In Jones v DPP (2004), the principle issue was that Dr Jones was
a consultant, and therefore very much their sort of person, but
I digress...
The ratio decidendi of the Divisional Court's judgment is the
legal principle upon which it was decided. This became binding
case law. There were 2 principles in NJ's summary - that there
was nothing wrong in satisfying the substance of the requirement
(in this case providing a signed letter, instead of using the
form provided), and that the DJ was wrong to hold the fact that
Dr Jones did not use the form against him. Clearly the root of
the ratio is that there is nothing wrong in law with complying
with the substance of the requirement to name the driver, where
the stated requirement to use a particular form is immaterial to
the legal process.
The fact that the response was in writing, and signed by Dr
Jones does not mean that that is required for substantial
compliance. In law the response in the form of a letter had
exactly the same evidential value as if it has somehow been
squeezed onto the form.
The case law that ostensibly provides the authority for the
police to require that a response is in writing and signed all
stems from Lord Woolf's judgment in Boss v Measures - there is
an implied power in s. 172 (and it's legislative precursors) to
make reasonable requirements as to the manner in which the
required information should be provided. Reasonable in all the
authorities was predicated on giving effect to Parliament's
legislative purpose, by closing what were effectively loopholes.
Telephoning a random council employee and telling them who was
driving a particular car on a particular occasion does not
satisfy the substance of the requirement to provide the
information to the parking department in order to issue
proceedings against the driver. In Francis v DPP (2004) (same
Idris Francis, different case to O'Halloran & Francis v the UK
in the Grand Chamber of the ECHR) Francis was the driver, and as
such the stated requirement to sign the s. 172 response was
necessary to enable it to be admissible under s. 12(1) RTOA
1988. For many years, a number of people who failed to
understand the question were adamant that there was some
overarching rule that any s. 172 response must be in writing and
signed by the addressee. The fact that many police forces now
allow online nominations where the addressee was not the driver,
but not where he was the driver illustrate just how badly they
failed to understand the question.
#Post#: 107910--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: andy_foster Date: January 29, 2026, 10:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For those that mean well, but have missed the point by a country
mile, as regards an s. 172 charge, the date of service (or issue
if date of service cannot readily be proven) of the NIP is only
relevant to the date of the alleged s. 172 offence and/or the
start of the 27 day period to provide the information.
Where the accused was not the driver, it is not even relevant to
some contrived circumstance where he manages to divulge the
identity of the driver whilst giving evidence defending the s.
172 charge (unless the speeding had, by some equally contrived
circumstance, not timed out by the time the case was heard).
#Post#: 107911--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: indigo2026 Date: January 29, 2026, 10:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=FuzzyDuck link=topic=9715.msg107906#msg107906
date=1769704149]
[quote author=indigo2026 link=topic=9715.msg107899#msg107899
date=1769700959]
Yes, and yes. (It's worth noting here that the car is leased)
[/quote]
So this was not the first NIP, as the RK is either the leasing
company or a finance company.
[/quote]
You're absolutely correct. However would that change anything
for me? As it was the first NIP I received?
#Post#: 107915--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: NewJudge Date: January 29, 2026, 11:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]However would that change anything for me? As it was the
first NIP I received?[/quote]
The only thing it changes for you is that the NIP you were sent
was provided as a courtesy only. There is a legal requirement
only for the first NIP (usually sent to the RK). Only if that is
deficient in any way (either it is served late or does not
provide all the details required by the law) can it provide the
basis for a defence to the speeding allegation.
The document which concerns you is the accompanying “Request for
Driver’s details.” Whilst that may be printed on the same sheet
of paper as the NIP, it is a separate document subject to
different legislation. Crucially there is no time limit to serve
it whereas the first NIP must be served within 14 days of the
alleged offence.
None of this is really of any concern to you. The NIP will only
become relevant to the driver if he attempts to use any
deficiencies in it to defend a speeding allegation. It cannot be
used to defend a “fail to provide driver’s details” charge. As
you were not driving it becomes irrelevant.
#Post#: 107930--------------------------------------------------
Re: Facing SJPN for Speeding - Tried to nominate wife but portal
glitched.
By: indigo2026 Date: January 29, 2026, 1:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=NewJudge link=topic=9715.msg107915#msg107915
date=1769708385]
[quote]However would that change anything for me? As it was the
first NIP I received?[/quote]
The only thing it changes for you is that the NIP you were sent
was provided as a courtesy only. There is a legal requirement
only for the first NIP (usually sent to the RK). Only if that is
deficient in any way (either it is served late or does not
provide all the details required by the law) can it provide the
basis for a defence to the speeding allegation.
The document which concerns you is the accompanying “Request for
Driver’s details.” Whilst that may be printed on the same sheet
of paper as the NIP, it is a separate document subject to
different legislation. Crucially there is no time limit to serve
it whereas the first NIP must be served within 14 days of the
alleged offence.
None of this is really of any concern to you. The NIP will only
become relevant to the driver if he attempts to use any
deficiencies in it to defend a speeding allegation. It cannot be
used to defend a “fail to provide driver’s details” charge. As
you were not driving it becomes irrelevant.
[/quote]
Brilliant, detailed response. Thank you.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page