s172 form

TadleyBaggie

Fat_Walt wrote: »

It's not routine.

But it does happen, several cases on Pepipoo where the RK was not traceable via the DVLA records and the police used insurance data instead.

Fat_Walt

TadleyBaggie wrote: »

But it does happen, several cases on Pepipoo where the RK was not traceable via the DVLA records and the police used insurance data instead.

But not several cases where they've gone direct to named drivers.

Car_54

Fat_Walt wrote: »

But not several cases where they've gone direct to named drivers.

Eh? A named driver would be the first port of call.

Or am I missing something? Can you reveal exactly where the police/CPS and the court have gone wrong in this particular case?

Fat_Walt

Car_54 wrote: »

Eh? A named driver would be the first port of call.

Or am I missing something? Can you reveal exactly where the police/CPS and the court have gone wrong in this particular case?

If you say so.

Have you ever done the job?

HO87

I see nothing complicated here.

Based on the report it would seem that both husband and wife have provided equivocal replies to their s.172's. The husband would seem to have been the keeper (for the purposes of s.172 - not the same as "registered keeper") at the time and so he had the more onerous duty - viz "reasonable diligence" and has still equivocated. Something like - "Maybe me. Maybe the wife" and she has then been issued quite properly with her own s.172. It seems that she has provided much the same response and unless she could demonstrate that she had no information that would lead to the identification of the driver then the offence is complete. Where is the issue here?

It sounds as if the original NIP/s.172 may have gone to the company who have simply named the husband as the "keeper" at the time of the offence or maybe even the driver(?).

There is no requirement that a s.172 is served within 14 days. That deadline applies to Notices of Intended Prosecution (NIP's) and then only to the first in any sequence. This is a common misapprehension due in no small part to the fact that NIP's inevitably have s.172's attached to them but there are plenty of offences (not that discussed here) for which there is no requirement for a NIP and so standalone s.172 are used (albeit in some forces the two appear on a dual purpose form).