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

[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

Edited March 20, 2021 by Manxman in exile

[Manxman in exile]

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

[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?

[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

[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 recieved 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)

[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.

 

[Manxman in exile]

14 minutes ago, BazzaS said:

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).

 

 

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)

[Manxman in exile]

28 minutes ago, BazzaS said:

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).

 

norton47 - ignore this post from BazzaS as he has completely misunderstood my earlier suggestion to you because he only looked at the thread I quoted after post #8 in it had been edited to make it meaningless.  (Cross posted with BazzaS)

 

My earlier advice above stands regarding what your father needs to consider in deciding whether to plead guilty or not guilty.

 

Pleading guilty to the s172 failure to identify gets him 6 points and (I think) a discounted fine.  Pleading Not Guilty means he will have to attend court and he might get off the charge, or the court might still find him guilty which means 6 points, a full value fine and probably costs on top.  If he pleads Not Guilty but does not attend court he will almost certainly be found guilty anyway.

 

The point of my other post was to suggest to you to look wider for advice and not to rely solely on this site.  Post #8 in that thread referred to another website that specialises in speeding and s172 offences that you might like to look at.  Unfortunately, after I linked to it, the software on this website broke the link to that other site, causing all the confusion above.  The only reason I was quoting that other thread was because it contained the link to the other site I'm referring to - NONE of the other advice in that thread apples to you - only that in post #8

 

Apologies for the confusion but it's caused by this site changing links to other sites.

[Manxman in exile]

1 hour ago, brassnecked said:

It would be good to scan or take a photo of the letter so send to CPS and Police, keep the original safe

 

 

Unfortunately the letter from the DVLA is probably an irrelevant side issue as there is no suggestion anywhere that the OP's father was ever associated with the vehicle in question.  (It would seem the OP's father was led down this particlar garden path by the police wrongly suggesting he needed to contact the DVLA to "remove" his non-existent connection to the vehicle).

 

We know from the OP's post #20 that the first NIP/s172 was sent to the Registered Keeper and then two subsequent 172s followed and the OP's father was named by the third person in the chain.

 

It would thus appear that the DVLA have never linked the vehicle to the OP's father and that he only received a request because he had been named by somebody else.

[Manxman in exile]

norton47

 

So long as you and your father appreciate that pleading Not Guilty does not guarantee success if you cannot persuade the court that the form was returned, then go ahead. 

 

If he wins there are no consequences other than having to present his defence in court; if he loses the only additional cost over pleading guilty is that he loses any discount available on the fine and will have to pay court costs.  (Not sure what this would amount to but others here probably can tell you).

 

Yes - try contacting the police and CPS and try to persuade them to drop the charges.  (You might also want to try arguing with them that to prosecute your father in these circumstances is not in the public interest)

 

 

 

Good luck

[Manxman in exile]

2 minutes ago, norton47 said:

I get what you are saying,but would it not show that if he sent a letter to the DVLA about this,that he would have also sent the request back to the police asking to name the driver?

 

Fair point.  Use it to stregthen the argument "Why would I not return the 172 request when I've gone to the trouble of writing to the DVLA?  And I only contacted DVLA because the police advised me to do so when I contacted them.  Why wouldn't I etc etc... ?"

[Manxman in exile]

On 26/03/2021 at 10:41, brassnecked said:

Great news then they might have realised it was a procedural mess up with wrong target for S172  Did you ask them to send confirmation?

 

There hasn't been any procedural mess up with the s172 process.  If you look at #20 the original NIP/s172 correctly went to the registered keeper and two subsequent s172s went to a garage and then to "a convicted fraudster", who it would appear named the OP's father - possibly maliciously.

 

The issuing of s172s was correct based on the information returned to police.

 

There are perhaps three things to note for anybody who receives a s172 request:

 

First, when preparing to return a s172 request I'd prepare three identical copies.

 

Second, I'd keep one copy and return the other two.  At least one of those I'd post first class from a post office and get a free certificate of posting.  The second one I'd post first class in a letter box, or from a different post office if I could.

 

Might seem a bit belt and braces but (1) it's unlikely that two independently posted s172s will go missing and (2) if they do go missing you've got proof you returned something and kept a copy of what you sent.  Worth it to avoid a conviction in court, 6 points on your licence, and insurance grief for at least five years.

 

Third and perhaps most important - if you are bang to rights but think you've got a "compassionate excuse", put it to them and ask them to drop the charges.

 

 

 

 

 

[Manxman in exile]

On 26/03/2021 at 10:26, norton47 said:

Hello everyone and thank you.

I have just had a telephone call with a very nice man from the prosecution service,the charge has been dropped.

 

Well done.  Your dad and your mum must be relieved that you got this sorted for him.  (To be honest I didn't think it would work  - but you had nothing to lose!  Again, well done.)

[Manxman in exile]

Of course Man in the Middle has pointed out the most important thing about dealing with a s172 request (which I failed to mention!)

 

And that is - make sure you respond to it within the timesacale - even if it's just to tell them that it isn't your car, or you weren't there or whatever.  And make sure you sign it.  (Different advice might apply in Scotland)

 

Even if you haven't a clue what it is about, you still the run the risk of a conviction, a fine and points if you do not reply to a s172 request addressed to you.

 

Binning it or otherwise ignoring it is asking for trouble...

 

(Of course the OP's father did exactly the right thing in this thread.  He was just unlucky it got lost in the post.)