Help with Notice of intended prosecution - SPEEDING

[Bert12345]

Hi my partner received a notice of intended prosecution for speeding (46mph in 40mph) Before we respond - is there any defence here? I am unable to attach documentation currently but can share if there is an alternative method The only error i can see is that the letter is address to a MR X XXXXX when she is a Miss - dont know if there is any loophole (i doubt it) thank you for your help

[Bert12345]

Hi my partner received a notice of intended prosecution for speeding (46mph in 40mph) Before we respond - is there any defence here? I am unable to attach documentation currently but can share if there is an alternative method The only error i can see is that the letter is address to a MR X XXXXX when she is a Miss - dont know if there is any loophole (i doubt it) thank you for your help

just to add - she and i both took turns driving the car that evening and at the moment we are retracing our steps - we got engaged about an hour prior so were probably caught up in that - that its making it really tricky to be sure. She is the keeper so says she might just say it was her but that doesn't seem fair as we cannot remember where we pulled over to change. I know everyone has a story but this is actually true! Not that its a defence!

[HandyAndy]

"...the letter is address to a MR X XXXXX when she is a Miss - dont know if there is any loophole (i doubt it)"

No it doesn't really help. It might be arguable if there is also a Mr X XXXXX at the same address (when she might argue she didn't open the letter as it was not addressed to her). Though even that would be a stretch as she would have to convince a court that she and Mr X XXXX did not communicate with each other.. Is it possible she is not the Registered Keeper (RK) and perhaps the car is on lease? The police use the DVLA records to send out these notices to the RK and lift the RK's details directly from the DVLA database. If she is the RK she should check the V5C. If she is not, the error may be down to whoever nominated her as the driver.

As far as identifying the driver goes, she must respond with an unequivocal nomination or she will be charged with "Failing to provide driver's details." This offence, on conviction, carries a hefty fine, six points and an insurance crippling endorsement code (MS90) which will see increased premiums for up to five years. There is a defence to the charge which says this:

"A person shall not be guilty of an offence .....if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was."

It's a tough task to convince a court hat two adults could not remember who was driving on a particular occasion a short while ago and could not find out when asked. If it was easy everybody would do it. However, there have been one or two notable successes:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/...t%20the%20time.

Before responding she could ask the police for "any photographs which might help identify the driver." They don't have to provide them but usually will (though it does not pause the 28 days in which she has to respond). However, they don't usually help as most photographs of speeding vehicles are taken from the rear. But it will allay any fears she has if she pursues the "best guess" strategy (see below) that the police may have a photograph that can, say, distinguish whether a male or female was driving.

The driver will almost certainly be offered a course for that speed. This will cost about £100 and a few hours of time, but no points. The alternative is to fail to name the driver and run the defence I mentioned above. However, the difference in outcomes if that defence is unsuccessful is considerable. If convicted she will get no change from £1,000 and also have the endorsement code I mentioned..

Whilst it is an offence to deliberately name somebody you know could not have been driving there would be reason for the police to disbelieve her if she took the "best guess" approach (particularly if she has asked for the photographs as I suggested above). Many people see that as the pragmatic solution when faced with your problem.

There a couple of "technicalities" she could check. With some limited exceptions, the first NIP to the RK must be served within 14 days of the offence. She could also check the Traffic Order which provides for the limit. This should be available from the local authority responsible for the road in question. They are almost always in order, but occasionally there are deficiencies.