When the police believe a vehicle has been involved in a motoring offence, such as speeding, they will send a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) to the registered keeper. This will normally include a formal section 172 request, requiring the keeper to identify who was driving at the time of the alleged offence. You have 28 days from service of the notice to provide that information.
Not replying, or not giving the required information, can result in a separate charge of failing to provide driver details – an offence carrying six penalty points and a fine of up to £1,000.
For many motorists, the real risk is totting-up. A further six points can take you to 12 and trigger a six-month ban, unless you can make a successful Exceptional Hardship application. Even where the additional points do not lead to an immediate ban, they can leave you on the brink of the 12-point threshold, which is a worrying position.
We specialise in this area and provide clear advice about the best course of action and whether any defences in law apply. We understand the importance of protecting your licence.
Contact our motoring team for expert advice at [email protected] by phone on 0333 240 7373, or via our online contact form.
Defences
There are a number of possible defences, which if successfully argued can avoid any penalties:
Don’t know who was driving: The defence of ‘reasonable diligence’ applies if you cannot identify the driver but can clearly explain the reasonable steps you took to try to find out. This is a common scenario, particularly among families and those using shared vehicles.
Genuine inability to respond in time: If it was not ‘reasonably practicable’ to respond within 28 days – for example due to illness, travel, postal disruption, or other personal circumstances beyond your control – this can amount to a defence under section 172(7)(b) of the Road Traffic Act.
Non-receipt (never got it): If you did not receive the section 172 notice, you cannot reasonably be expected to respond to it. If you can put forward a genuine explanation for non-receipt – such as known postal problems, mix-ups with post in a shared household, or other reliable circumstances – the defence may succeed.
Posted but not received: If you replied to the s.172 notice but the police didn’t get it. To succeed, you would need to show evidence that it was posted, such as a certificate of posting or witness evidence.
How We Can Help
We have advised hundreds of clients facing charges for failing to provide driver details, and always provide tailored, practical advice.
If you did not receive the paperwork for any reason and have recently discovered that you have been convicted without your knowledge, we can guide you through the process of reopening your case.
We also act for drivers who are close to 12 points and at risk of a totting-up disqualification. We have an outstanding track record in preventing bans – for more information, see our Exceptional Hardship page.
If you have received a s.172 notice or a court summons for failing to provide driver details, contact our motoring law specialists today for confidential advice. Email [email protected], complete our contact form, or call 0333 240 7373.
A conviction carries:
- 6 penalty points on your driving licence
- A fine of up to £1,000 (a Level 3 fine)
- A ‘totting up’ disqualification if you reach 12 or more points within three years
- Significantly increased insurance premiums, often for several years
Because the penalty points are higher than for most speeding offences, it is often more serious to be convicted of the s.172 offence than the original alleged offence.
Where the vehicle belongs to a company, both the company and its directors can be prosecuted if the failure occurred with their knowledge or due to a lack of proper oversight.
With over 20 offices, including in London, Oxford, Reading, Bristol, Cardiff and Manchester, as well as a wider network of regional locations, we are able to assist clients anywhere across England and Wales.
Many of our clients prefer the convenience and speed of virtual meetings, which can be arranged at short notice.
It is crucial to have a detailed working knowledge of the extensive body of Crown Court case law in this area, and a clear understanding of how those decisions are applied in practice at the Magistrates’ Court. Fine distinctions often determine whether a defence succeeds or fails.
The following authorities are commonly relied upon in section 172 proceedings and demonstrate how the courts approach these issues:
Whiteside v DPP [2011] EWHC 3471; (2012) 176 JP 103 – The registered keeper was abroad and failed to respond to a s.172. He relied on the defence that “it was not reasonably practicable for him to give the information”. The court ruled that he should have made arrangements for dealing with post in his absence. This is an important case as it places a burden on the motorist. If a notice is missed due to the motorist’s own failure, the defence may fail.
R. (Flegg) v Southampton and New Forest Justices [2006] EWHC 396 – The registered keeper responded to the section 172 request stating that more than one person could have been driving the vehicle on the day in question. However, he failed to identify the other person who could realistically have been driving. The High Court held that this did not satisfy the statutory obligation. The keeper had failed to give information that was clearly within his power to provide. This case underlines that vague or incomplete responses can result in a conviction for this offence.
Get in touch
Information is processed inline with UK GDPR and our Privacy Policy
FAQ
A Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) is a formal warning from the police. It lets a driver know they may face prosecution for a road traffic offence, such as speeding. An NIP must reach the driver or registered keeper within 14 days of the offence. This gives a chance to identify who was driving during the incident.
If you did not receive the original NIP or Single Justice Procedure Notice – for example because you were away, had moved address, or there were postal issues – and were convicted without your knowledge, you may be able to reopen the case by making a statutory declaration. This must usually be done within 21 days of becoming aware of the conviction. If successful, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the proceedings restart from the beginning.
We can advise on the statutory declaration process, prepare the necessary paperwork on your behalf, and in many cases arrange this without the need for you to attend court. It is also important to obtain proper advice on whether you may have a defence, so you enter the appropriate plea once the case is reopened.
Yes – it is not uncommon for people to face a prosecution under s.172 when they genuinely didn’t know who was driving at the time of the motoring offence. However, you may have a defence if you can show that you exercised ‘reasonable diligence’ in trying to identify the driver. This means taking various steps to try and find out who was driving – for example, checking diaries, phone records, receipts and work schedules. Simply saying you do not know who was driving is not enough on its own.
Most NIPs for speeding and other offences will include a section 172 request requiring you to identify the driver. If you ignore this, you are likely to be prosecuted for failing to provide driver details. In most cases, this is dealt with by way of a Single Justice Procedure notice, asking you to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. If you are convicted, you can expect six penalty points and a financial penalty, together with prosecution costs and a victim surcharge.
If you gave the wrong details on the s.172 request, much will depend on whether this was a genuine oversight or a deliberate attempt to avoid getting the penalty points. Knowingly providing false driver details is extremely serious and can lead to a further offence of perverting the course of justice, which carries a real risk of imprisonment. If there is any suggestion that incorrect details have been provided, you should seek urgent legal advice.
Yes, the offence is committed if the information is not provided within 28 days of service of the notice, unless it was not reasonably practicable to respond within that time. Late replies do not automatically prevent prosecution. However, in some cases a late response, combined with a genuine reason for the delay, may form part of a viable defence.