Been wrongly named as the driver of car caught speeding *** Resolved***

[norton47]

Hello everyone, hopefully someone can help us sort this out.

 

In October 2020 my dad got a speeding fine through the post, for a car he has never seen, owned or driven.

We requested the photo to see if we recognised who was driving at the time of the offence, as they gave my fathers name and address so we thought they must know him. It was a poor quality photo, but it was a stranger.

 

We rang the police and asked what to do, they said write to the DVLA and ask them to remove my father's name from the database regarding this car.

The police could not tell us who owned the car, so we said that we checked online and the car in question was taxed, tested and insured, could they not trace the driver that way? They said they couldn't. We wrote to the DVLA and that was that 

 

,until today.

My Dad got a failure to give drivers info sec 172 in the post.

Can someone explain how this can happen?

 

We got the speeding camera photo and you can see its a man with dark hair in his 30s or 40s, my dad has white hair and is 75, all the police had to do was look at the photo on file on my dads driving licence and they can see it's not him. 

 

When this sec 172 arrived, we finally saw, through something called the pentip system, that the fine went to the registered keeper, then a garage and then to someone my dad has known for 40 years, a man who was jailed in the last 10 years for fraud. He is the one who gave my dads name ,he must of known that my dad had been shielding at the time of the offence as he is on the clinically extremely vulnerable list and in very poor health.  

 

How can this be allowed and what do we do next with regards to responding to this sec 172, i was just going to fill it in online and plead not guilty, but the way this has been handled so far, my dad will end up getting convicted. It's like the evidence doesn't matter.

[brassnecked]

Has he phoned the Police again to say the DVLA know he never owned the car?  hang fire people who know more about this will be along soon

[norton47]

No,not yet.We have heard nothing from the DVLA at all about this,we tried ringing at the time,but we just kept getting recorded messages saying call another time,then they would disconnect the call.

Thank you for replying.

[brassnecked]

have you proof of father's whereabouts at time as in at home shielding?

 

[norton47]

The offence was in August 2020,and to be honest the only proof we will have is his and my Mothers word that he was in the house and we would have trouble proving it i think,unless he has google timeline switched on on his phone and that will show where he was that day.

But it is 10000% not him in the speed camera photo,not even a close resemblance.

[BazzaS]

You need to consider the two possible alleged offences separately.

One possible offence is speeding. Your (his!) defence to that is “not guilty. I was not the driver, and am not the person visible as the driver in the photo”.

 

The other offence is failure to furnish the driver’s details. Did your father

a) receive a S.172 request to identify the driver, and

b) if he did, what did he do in response to that, and

c) when?

 

Has he only just received the S.172 request? Or has he now received notification of having been found guilty of not responding?

Edited March 19, 2021 by BazzaS

[norton47]

I don't actually remember what it was he got, hopefully he has kept the original letter from last year, i will ask him tomorrow if he still has it. If it was a s.172, and he sent it back saying he didn't know who was driving, would this of happened?

 

I can't believe someone can just throw your name in to the police and an innocent person has to go through all this. We know now who gave his name ,but it wasn't him in the photo either, so it was whoever he sold the car to or a friend of his. I have no qualms about shopping this bloke if it will help prove my dads innocence.

 

This is the letter we posted to the DVLA in October last year.

 

To whom it may concern, I have been nominated as the driver of a car that has been caught speeding.
I have never owned the car, seen the car or know anything about the car.

I have received the photos of who is driving the car, I do not recognise them, but if you check my driving licence photo,y ou can see it is clearly not me.

I would like my details removed from the database regarding this car before it goes any further.

I have informed the police I am not the owner or the driver, and never have been, but I would like to know the name of the person who is.

We checked the car online and it is taxed and insured,so surely whoever is paying for that will be able to help with enquiries, and I hope be prosecuted for giving false information about me with regards to who was driving at the time.

[BazzaS]

Rather than asking “would this have happened” “if he sent the S.172 back saying he didn’t know who was driving”, you’d be better asking him “what did you receive, what did you do”.......... as then replies can be tailored to the actual situation!!

[norton47]

He is in bed at home right now,i will have to do it tomorrow,but what i meant was,what was he meant to reply,he genuinely didn't know the car or driver,would they have believed him?

I wish i could remember what happened with the letter but my memory is nearly as bad as his.

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by norton47

[brassnecked]

Looking at timescale its possible this is either a summons or an actual penalty, hopefully he sent the S172 back stating Iwas not the driver and have never been the Registered keeper of that vehicle.

[norton47]

Thanks everyone,for replying,i will report back tomorrow.

[Manxman in exile]

If your father received a s172 request to name the driver and he never replied, then it's probably the case that he is being charged with failure to identify - indeed it's possible he's already been convicted!

What your father should have done is return the form signed by him saying that he had no connection whatsoever to the vehicle in question and therefore has no idea who was driving at the time and place in question.

Before anyone can tell you what your father needs to do to recover this, you must identify exactly all the paperwork your father has received.  (eg  You keep saying he's received a speeding fine in the post - I bet he hasn't - unless you've missed out a lot of the details)

Presumably he must have received a s172 request to start this all off, but what else?  Has he received a summons to court charging him with anything?  (Might be called a Single Justice Procedure Notice).  Has he been notified he's been convicted of anything? 

If you feel your father might not be able to reliably remember what he has or has not received, it would be a good idea to check his licence on-line to see if he's received any points yet.

PS - whoever your father spoke to originally that told him to go to the DVLA should also have told him that he MUST still reply to the s172 in writing.  That might be worth a complaint

Just having re-read through this thread, are you saying your father has ONLY received a s.172 request so far?  (Sorry but the thread is a bit confusing because you keep talking about receiving "speeding fines" and s172 requests.)

It reads to me like your father received a first s172 request in October 2020? And that he has only recently(?) received another one?  Is that correct?  Are they both addressed to him?  (ie they weren't addressed to someone else who passed them onto him?).

If your father only has a current s172 request, all he needs to do is to reply to it as I suggested above.  He does not have and never has had any connection to the vehicle in question and therefore he does not know who was driving it at the time and place concerned.

He puts that on the form, signs it and returns it.  He has 28 days to do so from the date of the 172 request.  If he does not reply within that time he is committing an offence.

So if it is only at the stage of receiving a 172 request, that's all your father needs to do.  What I don't understand is if he received a first one back in October 2020, why is he only having to deal with another s172 now?  Has he perhaps not done anything with it until now hoping it would go away?

This is why you need to identify all the correspondence (with dates) of everything he's received.  And confirm they've all been addressed to him - not someone else.

Good luck.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Manxman in exile

[norton47]

Ok,sorry about any confusion, i have a mental problem and my train of thought is terrible.

 

Here are the facts, timeline etc.

30/09/20 my dad gets a request to name driver through the post

 

06/10/20 my dad was sent the photograph of the speeding car with further correspondence

The next two bits of information we only know because they are in the letter he received the other day.

 

30/10/20 my dad was charged  sec 172(3) rta 88

 

25/02/2021 somebody checked the FPU system and stated that there was an absence of reply.

My mother has confirmed that the original request to name the driver was returned 08/10/2020 stating he did not know who the driver was and the car was unknown to him.

 

At the same time a letter stating the same was sent to the DVLA on advice from the police over the phone.

 

No reply from the DVLA,

no more correspondence from the police until 2 days ago when he got a single justice procedure notice RT88567.

 

I have just checked online,my dad still has zero penalty points on his licence.

 

[Manxman in exile]

No need to apologise for your confusion.  I'm sure it's very stressful for all of you.

 

Well done for sorting out the information you have.

 

So, if I understand your timeline of events properly:

 

1.  Dad received his first s172 request 30 Sep 2020;

 

2.  Dad responded in writing to the request on 08 Oct 2020 to the effect that the car was unknown to him and he did not know who was driving;  (I don't suppose that anyone kept a copy of that reply  or got a certfiicate of posting from a post office?)

 

3.  It appears a decision to charge your dad for a s172 offence was made at the end of October 2020, but you have only just learned of that because of recent developments;

 

4.  your dad received a Single Justice Procedure Notice two days ago.  (Presumably this SJPN only lists one charge - failing to identify the driver following a s172 request?)

 

Presumably the response to the 172 request that your dad sent on 08 October got lost in the post.  It can happen at the best of times and even more so with everything being upside down because of Covid.  If it wasn't posted from a post office and you have no certificate of posting then it will be difficult to persuade a court that he responded.

 

I presume the SJPN is basically asking your dad to plead Guilty or Not Guilty?  Obviously your dad did reply to the request, but if he has no evidence that he did so, the question arises as to whether it is worth trying to defend the charge.  I'm not sure what the level of fine is for this offence, but if found guilty (or pleading guilty) your dad's licence will be getting 6 points either way.  And if he does plead not guilty it will go to court for trial and become more costly in money terms on top of just paying a fine.  A conviction for this offence is also strongly disliked by insurance companies and insurance will become very expensive. 

 

What makes your dad's case more complicated is that he wasn't the driver and the car had nothing to do with him.  (I won't go into why that makes it more complicated because it might tempt him to do something that he shouldn't under any circumstances do).

 

I think he could plead Not Guilty because he did respond to the request but it obviously got lost in the post.  He could argue that the fact he had no connection to the car whatsoever and he did not know who was driving demonstrate that he could have had no ulterior motive in not replying, and therefore why would he not have replied.

 

As I say - he could argue that, but whether he should is another matter.  It might turn out very expensive.

 

Check what the deadline for replying to the SJPN is and see what others here suggest before doing anything hasty.  There is another regular poster here called Man in the Middle who is very knowledgeable in this area and always gives very reliable advice.  Wait and see what he says.

 

One last question - what is "FPU"?   are you in Scotland by any chance?

[norton47]

Thank you for replying.We are in England,the recent letter mentions the FPU system,i have no clue what that is.

 

We will be pleading not guilty,because he is not guilty.

 

Surely if they look at the evidence of the photo,where it's clearly not my dad driving the car,he is not and never has been the registered keeper of the car,he was shielding at the time on the advice of the Government and the man who gave his name is a convicted fraudster,surely that would be enough to convince them he is not guilty?

 

Can they not investigate the man who named him as the driver?

There is no way he could go to court though,it would kill him,literally.The effect this is having on his health is already taking it's toll.

 

He has 17 days to reply to the charge.

[BazzaS]

Forget that he isn’t the person in the photo (at least for now).

 

Focus on the actual charge which is “failure to furnish”. His reply is that he did furnish the details, to the best of his ability, and that them not arriving due to the post doesn’t mean he didn’t provide them.

All the better if he could provide proof of postage.

 

Unfortunately, the courts hear “I did supply the details, but I don’t have proof of postage”, all the time. The court has to consider if this provides ‘reasonable doubt’ (which is all that is required. Now the fact it isn’t your Dad, he doesn’t know who it is, would mean that he doesn’t have the usual reasons people don’t reply (that it is them, or someone they know.

Manxman has summed this up by “I think he could plead Not Guilty because he did respond to the request but it obviously got lost in the post.  He could argue that the fact he had no connection to the car whatsoever and he did not know who was driving demonstrate that he could have had no ulterior motive in not replying, and therefore why would he not have replied.”

 

So, focus on the reply to the charge. Use the scenario to support that reply.

(To anyone who receives a S.172, get a certificate of posting [free!] for your reply.......)

Edited March 21, 2021 by BazzaS

[norton47]

I understand,focus on this charge and hope they believe the truth that he did send the reply and it has been lost in the post.

Unfortunately there is no proof of postage,the post box is 150ft from my parents house and it was just posted there.

[Manxman in exile]

If I was in your dad's position I'd want to plead Not Guilty as well.  Unfortunately (1) the courts do hear "I sent it but it obviously never arrived" all the time and they usually require proof it was sent before believing this, and (2) a Not Guilty plea is almost certainly going to result in a court appearance for your dad.  (I admit I do not know if there are remote hearings or anything at the moment because of Covid).

 

However, if your dad can show that he had absolutely nothing to gain by not replying (he has no connection to the car, he's never even seen it, he doesn't know who was driving it etc) then I would hope the court would be more inclined to believe him - even if he doesn't have any other proof of posting.  If not replying would not be of benefit to him, why would he lie about sending the reply?

 

If your dad has already received a SJPN it's probably already out of the police's hands and they won't be able to do anything about it, but I don't think you have anything to lose by 'phoning them and discussing your dad's case with them.  Point out he knows absolutely nothing about the car or driver etc and that therefore he had nothing gain by not sending a reply.  Says he's too ill/shielding whatever to defend himself in court.

 

I'd try every avenue (including speaking to the CPS if necessary) to get the case dropped so your father does not have to risk his health attending court.  Get names of people you talk to, dates and times, and if they agree to anything get it in writing.

 

(I'd be inclined not to mention the person you claim is a convicted fraudster because your dad's argument is he doesn't know the driver.  Also you shouldn't know who anybody else in the chain of s172 requests is anyway under data protection laws.  How did you find out?  You can just suggest that somebody earlier in the chain of 172 requests must have mistakenly named your father).

 

See what others suggest before you send off the plea.  You have some time yet.

Edited March 21, 2021 by Manxman in exile

[norton47]

The papers that arrived the other day show the chain of requests, with their full name and addresses, it was sent to the registered keeper, then a garage, then the fraudster, then my dad.

[Manxman in exile]

Ah - I see.

That clears up one thing I was wondering about - which was that if your dad had no connection to the car, how did DVLA get involved in the first place? 

That chain of requests shows the first one going to the registered keeper which is correct.  Presumably, when your dad got the s172 back in September/October he rang the police and asked "What's all this about?" and they suggested contacting the DVLA to make sure he was not the registered keeper? 

Not exactly bad advice but not exactly good advice either.  TheDVLA bit is all a red herring then.

Just one other point. 

Do the papers your dad received with the SJPN make it clear either that they received no response at all, or is it that they deemed his response invalid for some reason (eg not signed by him or it was unclear what his response actually meant - eg "Probably wasn't me"... "Might not have been me" etc)

[norton47]

The papers say they received no reply to the request for drivers info.

It's stupid,we even requested the photo of the driver to see if it was someone we knew,before sending the reply back.Why would we do that and then not reply?

And the man driving is not even the fraudster,its a stranger.

[Manxman in exile]

Hi norton47

 

I've been in contact with another poster more knowledgeable than me, and his view is basically the same as mine.

 

The main obstacle you father faces in pleading Not Guilty is in persuading the court that he replied to the s172 notice without any evidence that he sent a reply or even that the reply was complete.

 

The only thing he can argue is that as he had no connection to the car, and does not even know who the driver in the photo is, then he would have had nothing to gain or benefit from in NOT replying, so there was no reason for him not to reply.

 

If your father wants to plead Not Guilty then he will need to turn up in court and argue that point - simply giving the court an honest and straightforward account of what has happened.  Hopefully a reasonable court might be persuaded to believe your father's account, but there is no guarantee that they would.

 

So in terms of responding to the SJPN your father can either (1) plead Guilty, get 6 points on his licence and take the benefit of any discount on offer, or (2) plead Not Guilty and put forward his defence in court, and either get off scot-free or be convicted, get 6 points and pay the full fine - plus costs I suspect.  If your father pleads Not Guilty but does not turn up at court, he's pretty much certain to get convicted in his absence.  (However, as I said before, I'm not sure what Covid arrangements are in place regarding court appearances).

 

I would still try contacting the police and CPS as I suggested earlier and try to get them to drop the charge.  Probably won't work but if you don't try you won't find out.

 

Good luck

 

 

Edited March 22, 2021 by Manxman in exile

[Manxman in exile]

norton47

 

If you want to try spreading your net a little further for suggestions (and I would if I were you) try following the advice in post #8 here

 

 

It's a different situation from yours but the advice stands.  You can ignore the bit about V5C as it doesn't apply to you.

 

[BazzaS]

I disagree: he absolutely shouldn’t offer to plead guilty to speeding (which was what the previous thread quoted suggested)

1) It removes the “I had no reason to not return the S.127 and did return it”, and

2) is demonstrably false, and invites a conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Chris Hunhe got sentenced to 8 months (serving 9 weeks).

[Manxman in exile]

No BazzaS!

I did not suggest that norton47 follow the advice in that thread.  I told him to look at the advice in post #8 of that thread - nothing else.  Please read my post again. 

It is simply advising him that he may wish to cast his net further for advice. 

He should be pointed in other directions if he may find there other advice to help him and his father. 

It's a free country.

(Although I suspect that post has been edited after the fact to render it less useful now to norton47)