Traffic Offence / ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 SECTION 172(2)

[Kelvin W]

Hi I’m looking for some advice regarding this below letter I received today through the post. As of yet I do not know what the offence is for, I’ve tried to contact the police but the CJU Satellite department that I need to speak to is unavailable today:/ I can only assume this is for a mild speeding offence or possibly running a red light, the latter is most likely as I think I may have done accidently last month.

 

I received this letter today 5th October

 

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 SECTION 172(2)

 

As amended by section 21 Road Traffic Act 1991

 

You are recorded as the Owner/Keeper/Hirer of a Vauxhall Vectra registration number *******. In (Home town) on Friday 10th September 2010 at 15:45 hrs the driver of this vehicle is alleged to have committed an offence to which Section 172(1) Road traffic Act 1988 as amended applies. You are required to provide the full name and address of the driver at the time of the alleged offence within 28 days of receipt of this notice.

 

Any advice given would be much appreciated.

 

 

Thank you

 

Kelvin

[patdavies]

Is that really all it says?

 

1) It must be signed by or on behalf of the Chief Officer of Police for the constabulary concerned.

 

2) there is no locus

 

3) unless there was an accident, a Notice of Intended Prosecution must be served on the registered keeper within 14 days unless the Police can argue that the DVLA data was not current.

 

4) if it is genuine, there should be warnings about the penalties for failure to comply with s.172

 

5) it is extremely unusual for the alleged offence not to be described.

 

 

May I suggest that you scan, wash and post a copy of all the paperwork that you have received for members to comment and advise accurately

[Kelvin W]

CJU Satellite

Criminal Justice Unit

Po Box 144

Northampton

NN4 0FS

 

Tel: 03000 111 222 Ext: 5403

Fax: (01604) 875491

Our Ref: NK3676/10

 

Date: 04 October 2010

 

My address,

 

Dear Sir or Madame,

 

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 SECTION 172(2)

As amended by section 21 Road Traffic Act 1991

 

You are recorded as the Owner/Keeper/Hirer of a Vauxhall Vectra registration number *******. In (Home town) on Friday 10th September 2010 at 15:45 hrs the driver of this vehicle is alleged to have committed an offence to which Section 172(1) Road traffic Act 1988 as amended applies. You are required to provide the full name and address of the driver at the time of the alleged offence within 28 days of receipt of this notice.

 

Please return this letter with the panel below fully completed. On conviction for failure to supply this information the penalty can be a fine of £1000, penalty points and/or disqualification at the Magistrates discretion.

 

Yours faithfully

 

On behalf of and with the authority

Of the Chief Constable

 

To: Criminal Justice unit Date:

Northamptonshire Police Police ref: NK3676/10

 

Driver of Vauxhall Vectra registration number ******* in (Home Town) on Friday 10th September 2010 at 15:45 hrs

 

I hereby give notice that the driver of the above mentioned vehicle was:

 

Name……………………………………

Date of Birth……………………………

Address…………………………………

Tel no:…………………………………..signed…………………………………….

[Kelvin W]

Hi, thank you so much patdavies for your reply, the above post is exactly how the letter looks to me, I apoligise as I don't have a scanner unfortunately.

 

I have been the registered keeper of the vehicle for approximately four years and I've lived at the same address for approximately eight years.

[B & T]

I agree with Pat, this is a highly unusual requirement under s.172 and if it does relate to an alleged offence requiring the service of an NIP, which has to be served within 14 days of that alleged offence, the deadline has obviously passed and no further action can be taken against the alleged offender.

 

Again, as Pat points out, if it relates to an accident, an NIP is not usually required.

 

Either way, my advice is to reply to the letter (recorded delivery) keeping a copy, pointing out that the requirement is missing essential requisite information as to the nature of the alleged offence and exact location of same.

 

Under the circumstances, I would not at this stage provide the information they seek.

Edited October 6, 2010 by B & T
additional info

[B & T]

Deleted

Edited October 6, 2010 by B & T
Duplication

[esmerobbo]

I think you my find this has nothing to do with a traffic offence. Your vehicle may have been involved or seen in an area of a crime the police are investigating. I had a similar letter from Merseyside Police when my van was parked next to a lorry that had its diesel stolen.

I did not have a problem they just wanted to talk to me. I was eliminated from their enquires.

 

Check their website and see what they do it may give you an idea what they may want to talk to you about. http://www.northants.police.uk/default.aspx?id=734

[Raykay]

Maybe but the OP's letter clearly states that the driver is alleged to have committed an offence to which s.172(1) Road Traffic Act 1988 applies.

[Dragons Dennis]

I would just point out that you have left the reference number on your letter. Some sad case COULD ring them up and give them hell 'on your behalf'. I would delete that info from this site ASAP.

[B & T]

I think you my find this has nothing to do with a traffic offence. Your vehicle may have been involved or seen in an area of a crime the police are investigating. I had a similar letter from Merseyside Police when my van was parked next to a lorry that had its diesel stolen.

I did not have a problem they just wanted to talk to me. I was eliminated from their enquires.

 

Check their website and see what they do it may give you an idea what they may want to talk to you about. http://www.northants.police.uk/default.aspx?id=734

 

I really don't think so!!! This would be a gross abuse of authority and the legislation.

Besides, why not utilise the old fashioned methods of investigation with such crimes and suspects, maintain the element of surprise and knock on a few doors during the early hours; or has policing really changed that much?

[Old Snowy]

Whilst apparently unusual this is a perfectly acceptable s.172 requirement. The fact that such requirements are most often seen associated with NIP's does not mean that they must follow the same format. The section relates to a far broader range of offences than a NIP issued under the terms of s1 RTOA 1988

 

s.172 does not require that an offence is specified nor the location (although how one can be expected to fulfil the requirement, in some circumstances without that detail is difficult to fathom).

 

As already stated the OP can rest assured that should it transpire that the alleged offence is one to which s.1 applies that the apparent non-service of a NIP would scupper a successful prosecution.

[Kelvin W]

I would just like to thank everybody for there help and time on shedding light on this very confusing issue:/ I have managed to resolve this traffic offence today and esmerobbo you were spot on mate:)

I’ve spoken to the Police today and it turns out that this Traffic Offence has nothing to do with me; Joe public has given my car registration to the police implying that I was involved with a traffic accident on a road in my home town. When quite clearly I wasn’t, grrr and I get a very ambiguous threatening letter from the Police accusing me of committing an offence without giving me any details of what the Offence was:/

 

Thanks

Kelvin

[B & T]

Glad you've sorted it, although I must add that being (wrongly) suspected of involvement in what appears to be a non-stop RTA is not quite the same as being suspected of a 'dishonesty' offence.

 

The manner in which the police have handled this matter is, IMO, highly questionable & unsatisfactory on many levels. You are clearly angered at the situation, therefore you may consider it appropriate to make a formal complaint.

 

At the very least I would demand that the police send you a notice formally cancelling the S.172 requirement.

[Old Snowy]

Glad you've sorted it, although I must add that being (wrongly) suspected of involvement in what appears to be a non-stop RTA is not quite the same as being suspected of a 'dishonesty' offence.

 

The manner in which the police have handled this matter is, IMO, highly questionable & unsatisfactory on many levels. You are clearly angered at the situation, therefore you may consider it appropriate to make a formal complaint.

Why? The requirement as made and on the basis of what the OP has written was entirely proper. The law does not require that an offence be specified nor, indeed, even that the location be given although quite how, in that eventuality one might be expected to realistically fulfil the requirement I do not know. There is nothing to complain about here.

 

At the very least I would demand that the police send you a notice formally cancelling the S.172 requirement.

@OP Have you sent the police your written response supplying the details required? If, as I suspect, you have simply telephoned the officer dealing with the matter to his apparent satisfaction you have not fulfilled your legal obligations in relation to the requirement. Bear in mind that the offence thus committed carries a mandatory 6 points and these come with what is usually a hefty fine - £350+. I suggest you do reply in writing or at least speak to the officer again and ask him to confirm in writing that you are no longer required to comply with requirement.

[esmerobbo]

Glad it worked out for you Kelvin and it was nothing to do with you. I know I panicked when I received my letter.

 

I can see B&T,s point but in my case I was told it was covered under the RTA as Tampering with a vehicle!!! I suppose somebody stealing diesel, is tampering with a vehicle and the theft of the diesel is a case of dishonesty!!!

Edited October 8, 2010 by esmerobbo

[B & T]

s.172 does not require that an offence is specified nor the location

 

The law does not require that an offence be specified nor, indeed, even that the location be given

May I ask you to clarify you statements and to quote the relevant legislation/lawful authority upon which they are based.

[Old Snowy]

Sec 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 does not specify what information may be required albeit that case law allows for a Chief Officer of Police to decide the format of the response - in terms of content.

 

In addition, although a requirement can only be made in circumstances where a relevant offence is alleged s.172 does not require that either offence or the locus are specified.

 

The slightly confusing circumstances in the OP's case is that he has received a s.172 requirement in the absence of a NIP (to which the long-standing case of Young -v- Day [1959] 123 JP 317 applies in terms of clarity of details). Whether that case's applicability could be extended to s.172 is probably moot. Although, it is suggested, that a court is likely to apply the same argument as in Young -v- Day that imprecise details or, presumably, the absence of them such that was to mislead the recipient could invalidate the notice.