Speeding Offence - Not Knowing Who Was The Driver

Stevechaz12345

My wife and I have a lease car and have just received a ticket from Kent Police for an offence on 30 November 2024.

My wife and I were in the car and, given that it is more than 2 months ago and we share the driving, neither or us knows who was at the wheel.  This is not an attempt to get off the fine, happy to pay it and take the points (neither of us have any) or accept a place on the speed awareness course.

My concern is that it is a much more significant offence to give false evidence.  So if I take the hit, as the letter is addressed to me, am I opening myself up to something far worse.  Not, I am sure, that it will come to it.  However, the principal remains, I don't want to break the law.

I have looked at the photos online and there is no way of telling who is driving.

I plan to put this in writing and suggest that my wife and I both attend the driver awareness course and that we pay the fine, so that the real culprit gets their just deserts and the fine is paid.  At the same time, the other party will be reminded of their responsibilities on the road, so no harm done.

Does this seem a good solution or do you think Kent Police will think "we are not letting this chancer get away with it" and throw the book at us?

wongataa

To be honest the best thing to do if you genuinely can't tell who was driving at the time is to toss a coin to see who gets the points/course.  Then put their name on the form and send it off.

teaselMay

I'd write on the form, or if no space a letter attached to it, and say what you have above, making it clear you're not trying to avoid paying just that you genuinely don't know who was driving. I thought you had to receive the notification within 14 days of the offense.

TadleyBaggie

Stevechaz12345 said:

I plan to put this in writing and suggest that my wife and I both attend the driver awareness course and that we pay the fine, so that the real culprit gets their just deserts and the fine is paid.  At the same time, the other party will be reminded of their responsibilities on the road, so no harm done.

Terrible idea, absolutely zero chance the police will accept this. A driver has to be named, else you will commit a much more serious offence that will see 6 points, large fine and an endorsement code that will see your insurance costs increase.

Name the most likely driver is the only way forward.

TadleyBaggie

teaselMay said:

I'd write on the form, or if no space a letter attached to it, and say what you have above, making it clear you're not trying to avoid paying just that you genuinely don't know who was driving. I thought you had to receive the notification within 14 days of the offense.

Sure fire way of getting 6 points for failing to name the driver.

Since this was a lease car, the original NIP would have been sent to the finance company, so the 14 day limit doesn't apply.

Nobbie1967

Put down whoever does the most driving and leave it at that. Adding letters just unnecessarily complicates matters for no gain. They are not going to put a detective on this to track down who was really driving. Even raising the possibility of a false declaration with an accompanying letter could lead to problems.

facade

You are over-thinking it.

You break The Law if you don't unequivocally state who was driving (£1000 fine, 6 points and an offence code that will massively increase your insurance prices)

You break The Law if you knowingly provide a false declaration (with the intent to avoid the penalty = Perverting the course of justice-Possible imprisonment)

If you simply name the person who you honestly believe is most likely to have been driving (or speeding), then you won't meet the criteria for a successful prosecution- your defence would obviously be that you honestly believed that person was driving, and that there was no intent/need for you to avoid the penalty. (An example of PCOJ would be if you already have 9 points, and know you were driving but name your wife as she has zero points, so you can avoid a totting ban)

If you name yourself in error, and the evidential photograph clearly shows a female driver and a male passenger, they would more than likely write back to you to give you the opportunity to reconsider your nomination, as they would rather process the speeding than have to make out a case for Perverting the Course of Justice.

Which of you is more likely to have been driving at that speed? Name them.

Mildly_Miffed

Stevechaz12345 said:

My wife and I have a lease car and have just received a ticket from Kent Police for an offence on 30 November 2024.

Perfectly feasible.

The registered keeper receives the s172 request to identify the driver.
They nominate whoever they believe was in control of the car at the time. If the RK is "your" lease company, they nominate you.
But the registered keeper may not be the lease company, adding an extra step. It may be a head lessee, or it may even be the manufacturer's UK importer.

The RK needs to have the first s172 sent in time to be received within 14 days, but each additional step can take up to 28 days. Add in the Xmas break...

My wife and I were in the car and, given that it is more than 2 months ago and we share the driving, neither or us knows who was at the wheel.

Even consulting both of your personal schedules, and looking at the time and location?

I'd suggest that the balance of probabilities will lean strongly towards one of you.
If you're really, genuinely unsure - choose.

TooManyPoints

The police will not accept the "dual nomination" you propose. If they did, you could both simply not bother to take the course (assuming you are offered one) and the police would not be able to prosecute either of you as they have no evidence to prove who was driving. They cannot prosecute both of you for the same offence as only one of you could have committed it.

I have looked at the photos online and there is no way of telling who is driving.

Which should be of great solace to you because if you cannot tell, nobody else is likely to be able to.

As above, name the most likely driver. Doing anything else will see you prosecuted under Section 172. You would have to defend that charge on the basis that you did not know who was driving and could not, having exercised "reasonable diligence" find out. That defence is provided in the statute.

From your brief description it does not appear that you have exercised any diligence at all. If you simply turn up in court to say "It was two month's previously and I just don't know which one of us was driving", you will very likely be convicted (because if if was that easy everybody would do it).

That said, there have been one or two notable successes. Here's one:

Hamiltons finally exonerated | | The Guardian

But here's another who got short shrift:

'Speeding' driver demands justice | South Wales Argus

Herzlos

Who is most likely to be driving? Name them and move on with your life.

Adding any more to it or giving any indication that you may not be correct is only going to make it worse.

TooManyPoints

Adding any more to it or giving any indication that you may not be correct is only going to make it worse.

A good point and it's important. Do not add any riders such as "it might be"..."I think it was"..."I'm not sure but I think.."

That will not be acceptable.