Get UK Law Questions Answered by Verified Experts
Are you asking if you have a defence?
What steps have you taken to identify the driver?
have you sent that letter already? If not, please dont
They will send you a reminder NIP and if you don't disclose at that stage they will summons you for failing to identify.
You misunderstand the law I'm afraid.
The onus is upon you to identify the driver by means of investigation. S172 imposes a duty upon the person to take all reasonable steps to identify the driver. I'm afraid that asking your wife is not sufficient.
The problem with this is that people are always claiming that their cars are in multiple use and they can't remember who was driving.
The truth is that if the allegation being investigated were that a person driving this car was hanging around outside schools trying to abduct primary school children then the registered keeper would find out who he was so fast the world would spin. Magistrates are generally aware of that.
Bearing in mind that NIPs have to be served within 14 days and this is a personal car it becomes difficult to argue that you cannot identify, with reasonable diligence, the driver.
Of course nobody knows off hand who was driving but when diaries are checked and routes are retraced it is usually possible.
People who run haulage companies are in a different position but personal vehicles are caught I'm afraid.
If you are adamant that having done all of this you cannot say then you will have to respond naming the possible candidates but you may well end up being summonsed for failing to identify. You need to be aware of that. You may win in court but you need to be aware of the risk.
Can I clarify anything for you?
No. The onus is upon you.
S172 reverses the burden of proof.
On these facts you will be convicted I'm afraid.
That has no relevance to the obligation to name the driver.
There is no obligation to advertise speed cameras at any time.
The ACPO guidelines are not law.
They are perfectly free to hide them behind overgrown trees if they wish.
In any event, it is irrelevant to S172 and failing to identify.
I'm really sorry and I wish I could give you a different answer but I'm not going to be able to tell you that this is complying with S172.