Section 172 help

Paradigm

DUTR wrote: »

You can keep asking until someone posts what you want to read, however the thread already includes what you need to do, the questions are quite simple, who was in charge of the car at the time of the alledged incident? Was the person in charge incolved in an accident at the time?

That question hasn't been asked though...

Rover_Driver

DUTR wrote: »

You can keep asking until someone posts what you want to read, however the thread already includes what you need to do, the questions are quite simple, who was in charge of the car at the time of the alledged incident? Was the person in charge incolved in an accident at the time?

A s.172 requirement is to nominate the driver, not the person in charge of the vehicle - s.172, (2)(a)&(b), Road Traffic Act 1988.


In the OP's case, if no one was driving the vehicle at the time, that is why the advice is to attach a letter of explanation.

DUTR

Paradigm wrote: »

That question hasn't been asked though...

Not yet it hasn't.

jimjames

DUTR wrote: »

You can keep asking until someone posts what you want to read, however the thread already includes what you need to do, the questions are quite simple, who was in charge of the car at the time of the alledged incident? Was the person in charge incolved in an accident at the time?

The question as asked wasn't who was in charge of the car, the question is who was the driver. There was no driver as the car was parked so maybe not as simple as you suggest

DUTR

Rover_Driver wrote: »

A s.172 requirement is to nominate the driver, not the person in charge of the vehicle - s.172, (2)(a)&(b), Road Traffic Act 1988.


In the OP's case, if no one was driving the vehicle at the time, that is why the advice is to attach a letter of explanation.

You maybe playing on words here, lots of people could 'get off' by saying the car was not being driven by anybody at the time (gone into a shop or such).
Yes the OP could/should send in a covering letter, it may get read it may not, the mitigation is given at the time when asked.

Rover_Driver

DUTR wrote: »

You maybe playing on words here, lots of people could 'get off' by saying the car was not being driven by anybody at the time (gone into a shop or such).

It would be the same in those circumstances as well, the s.172 requirement is to give information to identify the driver.


If the car was not being driven, s.172 would not apply.

DUTR

Rover_Driver wrote: »

It would be the same in those circumstances as well, the s.172 requirement is to give information to identify the driver.


If the car was not being driven, s.172 would not apply.

It's been a long time since I had the form to complete, what I do recall though was it didn't mention the reason they were asking for the information.

Paradigm

DUTR wrote: »

You maybe playing on words here, lots of people could 'get off' by saying the car was not being driven by anybody at the time (gone into a shop or such).
Yes the OP could/should send in a covering letter, it may get read it may not, the mitigation is given at the time when asked.

Why are you complicating a simple procedure?

The S172 requires the ID of the driver at the time of the incident, there is no option to nominate "no-one, it was 50 miles away" so a covering letter explaining the circumstances is the way to go.

It will be read & the OP/husband should expect further questions.

Rover_Driver

DUTR wrote: »

It's been a long time since I had the form to complete, what I do recall though was it didn't mention the reason they were asking for the information.

It may not mention the reason, but it would mention where and when the alleged offence occured.


It may be served with a Notice of Intended Prosecution as well, which would.

DUTR

Paradigm wrote: »

Why are you complicating a simple procedure?

The S172 requires the ID of the driver at the time of the incident, there is no option to nominate "no-one, it was 50 miles away" so a covering letter explaining the circumstances is the way to go.

It will be read & the OP/husband should expect further questions.

I'm not, as I said the form just asked a question, I'm not disputing that the OP shouldn't send a covering letter, I'm just confused that they seem to know what it's all about before being advised of such.

As said when I completed mine, it was asked who may have been driving the vehicle at the time? (the time was quite wrong but only I drive my car) , I returned the form completed, then the officer was in touch to gather further details and that was it case closed no charge etc.