Notice of endorsement

Car_54

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Looking at the only other post started by the OP, it's quite possible that mail is getting lost or misplaced because of:



especially if they are packing up in preparation for moving or simply to store goods for a while.

I have moved house almost 20 times, and never had mail go missing. It doesn’t need a genius to arrange redirection.

Dr_Crypto

As others have said you can make a statutory declaration that you only just became aware of the proceedings and that takes it back to square one. Most courts don’t enquire too much about why you have only just become aware but they are of course free to do so.
But you then either have to name the driver or persuade the court that you cannot. That is very difficult and remember that members of Parliament have been jailed for trying it on with this.

Car_54

Dr_Crypto wrote: »

As others have said you can make a statutory declaration that you only just became aware of the proceedings and that takes it back to square one. Most courts don’t enquire too much about why you have only just become aware but they are of course free to do so.
But you then either have to name the driver or persuade the court that you cannot. That is very difficult and remember that members of Parliament have been jailed for trying it on with this.

It’s too late to name the driver: the charge is failure to furnish driver info. His only possible defence is that he did not receive the S172 request (difficult to prove) and also the subsequent SJPN and/or summons (stretching credulity). Unless there has been some change of address or postal problem which he hasn’t mentioned so far.

SHAFT

[quote=[Deleted User];76340908]It’s too late to name the driver: the charge is failure to furnish driver info. His only possible defence is that he did not receive the S172 request (difficult to prove) and also the subsequent SJPN and/or summons (stretching credulity). Unless there has been some change of address or postal problem which he hasn’t mentioned so far.[/QUOTE]

No it isn't.

Dr_Crypto

[quote=[Deleted User];76340908]It’s too late to name the driver: the charge is failure to furnish driver info. His only possible defence is that he did not receive the S172 request (difficult to prove) and also the subsequent SJPN and/or summons (stretching credulity). Unless there has been some change of address or postal problem which he hasn’t mentioned so far.[/QUOTE]

It’s common practice for prosecutors to withdraw the 172 and proceed with the speeding if the person names the driver. Maybe not on every occasion but generally.

Car_54

Dr_Crypto wrote: »

It’s common practice for prosecutors to withdraw the 172 and proceed with the speeding if the person names the driver. Maybe not on every occasion but generally.

Only if he names himself, which he says he can’t...