Late notification of intended prosecution

ChumLee

Retrogamer wrote: »

Saying you can't remember who was the driver isn't going to be a good defence.

Giving proof you were out the country when the offence occurred, you left your keys in the house and naming all the people who would have had access to those keys whilst you were away is a better defence but with how high they set the bar for getting out of naming a driver i wouldn't be surprised if that didn't stick either.

As for the person suggesting to reject the conditional offer, i wouldn't recommend it as it's possible that due to the dates the car changed keepers on the V5 this is what caused the delay and the 14 day rule is no longer applicable.

There is at this stage no conditional offer. They have asked for the driver, for the OP to get a conditional offer he would need to name himself as a driver.

Given the time it may go straight to summons to prevent a time out.

Hermione_Granger

ChumLee wrote: »

Don't list to this.

Another case of bad advice as he's clueless about law.

Your last two words in the above quote are superfluous.

esmerobbo

You would need to have been speeding on a motorway, really caning it on a motorway, or an higher earner speeding on a motorway to get the max £2500 fine for speeding.

However £1000 for FTF would not be that rare!

OP needs to check the Docref, to see if they have a case for a late NIP, but they also need to sort out who was driving and name them. Or do everything humanly possible to identify the driver.

Car_54

esmerobbo wrote: »

You would need to have been speeding on a motorway, really caning it on a motorway, or an higher earner speeding on a motorway to get the max £2500 fine for speeding.

However £1000 for FTF would not be that rare!

OP needs to check the Docref, to see if they have a case for a late NIP, but they also need to sort out who was driving and name them. Or do everything humanly possible to identify the driver.

That would be a bit excessive. The law only requires "reasonable diligence".

tberry6686

Problem is the courts have heard every reason/excuse going for not knowing who was driving and now regard reasonable diligence as pretty much everything possible.

dannyrst

If it was a journey you don't make often, or one that only the owner drives (e.g a holiday trip made once a year, or your normal trip to work), I'd expect it would be easy to remember who was driving.

If it is a shared car, a journey done often and you regularly swap drivers, I'd say it would be unfair to attempt to remember who drove on a specific day 12 weeks after the event.

esmerobbo

Car_54 wrote: »

That would be a bit excessive. The law only requires "reasonable diligence".

I agree but what do the bench think is "reasonable diligence" if you do everything "humanly possible" you should pass muster!