Received court summons letter for Speeding and failing to ID driver...

[PirateAndy]

To preface:

I never received the original ticket through the letter box despite my DVLA details being up-to-date and correct.

I have been charged with speeding in a 30 mph area and failing to ID the driver. I alrady know I can't prove the negative on not receiving the original ticket but I was driving and would've just paid the original fine if I was aware of it.

After advice found on this forum and on MSE forums I pleas not guilty to both offenses with the proviso that I would plead guilty to the speeding if they dropped the charge of failing to provide.

I now have the below letter from the court summoning me to attend a date in may. I had thought that they would've just accepted the guilty plea to the speeding and dropped the FtP due to unforseen administrative difficulties... but here we are.

Is this routine / a typical response, or am I boned and need to lawyer up?

[islandgirl]

You will have to go to court and convince the magistrates that you did not get the original post. The fail to identify driver is a more serious offence. If they believe you, you will have to swear an oath which should reset things to the original speeding fine. The mags may be kind and set it to the original amount for a guilty plea (as if you had received it in the post) as a hearing etc will normally result in costs of £85 etc.

[HandyAndy]

If they believe you, you will have to swear an oath which should reset things to the original speeding fine.

Any oath swearing will take place when he defends the FtP charge on the basis that he did not receive the request for driver's details. If they believe him then he walks away. The speeding offence is a dead duck as the police have no evidence that he was driving. That comes from the response to their request which he did not receive.

Or he could, of course, do as he has done - plead not guilty to both charges and offer to plead guilty to speeding providing the FtP charge is dropped. Should be easily sorted out when he attends court.

Is this routine / a typical response,

Not unusual at all.

[islandgirl]

Yes of course the oath relates to his not having received the original paperwork. The OP says I think he has pled Not Guilty so will go to court and once the fail to provide falls away then plead guilty and be convicted of speeding and mags may well keep the fine at the original level

[HandyAndy]

...and once the fail to provide falls away then plead guilty and be convicted of speeding

I'm not so sure you have the right end of the sick, IG (but forgive me if I'm wrong).

There are two alternatives when dealing with the OP’s situation:

Plan A is to plead not guilty to both charges and defend the FtP charge in the usual way by offering a defence in a trial. If he succeeds, he is acquitted of the FtP charge and the speeding charge cannot succeed because there is no evidence to show who was driving. So he walks away. In this scenario the FtP charge does not “fall away”. It went to trial and the defendant was acquitted.

Plan B is to plead not guilty to both charges but to offer to plead guilty to speeding on the condition that the FtP charge is dropped. This is a popular “deal” which requires the agreement of the prosecutors, but hat is almost always forthcoming. It is popular with defendants because it avoids the uncertainty of a trial where he essentially has to prove a negative. That’s notoriously difficult and the consequences of an FtP conviction are harsh to say the least.

In this case the FtP charge does, in a manner of speaking, “fall away” because the prosecution will offer no evidence. This just leaves the speeding charge to be sentenced and of course, as you know, Magistrates have guidance which suggests they should impose a sentence equivalent to the fixed penalty if they believe it is just to do so.

The OP has made his offer in response to his SJPN as per plan B and the court wants him to attend to clarify his pleas. There is nothing unusual in that.

[islandgirl]

Thank you for the detail but nope I had the right end of the stick. Done it many times as detailed above.

[HandyAndy]

Thank you for the detail but nope I had the right end of the stick. Done it many times as detailed above.

Apologies, then!

[PirateAndy]

I'm not so sure you have the right end of the sick, IG (but forgive me if I'm wrong).

There are two alternatives when dealing with the OP’s situation:

Plan A is to plead not guilty to both charges and defend the FtP charge in the usual way by offering a defence in a trial. If he succeeds, he is acquitted of the FtP charge and the speeding charge cannot succeed because there is no evidence to show who was driving. So he walks away. In this scenario the FtP charge does not “fall away”. It went to trial and the defendant was acquitted.

Plan B is to plead not guilty to both charges but to offer to plead guilty to speeding on the condition that the FtP charge is dropped. This is a popular “deal” which requires the agreement of the prosecutors, but hat is almost always forthcoming. It is popular with defendants because it avoids the uncertainty of a trial where he essentially has to prove a negative. That’s notoriously difficult and the consequences of an FtP conviction are harsh to say the least.

In this case the FtP charge does, in a manner of speaking, “fall away” because the prosecution will offer no evidence. This just leaves the speeding charge to be sentenced and of course, as you know, Magistrates have guidance which suggests they should impose a sentence equivalent to the fixed penalty if they believe it is just to do so.

The OP has made his offer in response to his SJPN as per plan B and the court wants him to attend to clarify his pleas. There is nothing unusual in that.

Yes the advice I had found across a number of forum posts was that it's damn near impossible to defend the FtP as there is no evidence I can present that the letter never arrived. All the cops have to do is prove they posted the notice and show I didn't respond.

(This would be much easier if they were legally obliged to send the letters via recorded mail)

So I decided to go with the least painful option to myself and my wallet. i.e. Plan B and cop to the speeding as long as they dropped the FtP since I had read this is so routine as to be an almost guaranteed quick resolution without having to mount an actual legal defence. I had also read that many courts accept this without hte need to attend court since the days of COVID when remote decisions were the norm and many courts continued with it for easy of processing such trivial matters.

So when I got the summons I was a bit taken aback.

[islandgirl]

It is not quite as totally routine and simple as you make out - the mags have to believe you did not receive the original notice. You cannot prove it of course but you will have to swear on oath. If items were sent recorded (ie signed for) noone would accept them! I have seen many similar cases so obviously drivers do attend court - I would not be surprised by the summons.

[HandyAndy]

(This would be much easier if they were legally obliged to send the letters via recorded mail)

It would not help at all. In fact it would make the job of the police easier. Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders’ Act covers the service of NIPs. It does not cover service of the accompanying s172 request, but since they are invariably printed on the same sheet of paper, the effect is the same. It says this:

“A notice shall be deemed…to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.”

So they could send you a NIP by recorded mail, you could simply refuse to sign for it (or it was not delivered for any other reason) and it would still have been “served” on you. Since the s172 request was on the same sheet of paper, I cannot see a court deciding that the request was not served on you as well.

The “presumption of service” for a NIP sent in the ordinary post is rebuttable – that is, you have the opportunity to persuade the court that it did not arrive. Because of the provision in s1 of the RTOA, that same presumption for a NIP sent by recorded or registered mail (or whatever the equivalents are now called) is not rebuttable. The police have only to prove it was posted and even if you could prove it did not arrive, it is still deemed “served”.

It is quite correct that some courts deal with this process without the driver’s attendance being required. But many don’t. And in any case, even if the court involved did, I strongly suspect you would have been required to attend for reasons which have been pointed out and elsewhere. Basically, because of your extensive explanation of what happened, your pleas were seen as not entirely unequivocal. You can argue about that until the cows come home, but the decision has been made and you are where you are.

“…the mags have to believe you did not receive the original notice. You cannot prove it of course but you will have to swear on oath.”

That is incorrect, IG. If the prosecutor agrees to the defendant’s offer, the FtP charge is dropped and no evidence will be offered. The defendant has to do nothing to defend that charge in those circumstances.

[islandgirl]

Interesting and thanks Handy Andy - I have seen people having to swear that they did not receive the original document before the charge of speeding is dealt with. Perhaps the circumstances I have seen have not agreed a deal in advance.

[HandyAndy]

That's a possible explanation, IG

The normal advice is to agree the “deal” with the prosecutor before entering the courtroom wherever possible. The prosecutor will then put the Bench in the picture without the defendant having to say too much. If the defendant is unable to do that, he should make his offer when asked to enter his plea.

What a defendant is doing by swearing that he did not receive the notice is effectively entering a defence to the s172 charge. If his evidence is accepted (which should be subject to cross-examination by the prosecutor) then he should be acquitted of the s172 offence. The speeding charge then has no legs because the police have no evidence that he was driving. The court has accepted that they haven’t got it because the defendant did not receive the request. It therefore makes no sense for him to plead guilty to speeding when there would be no chance of him being convicted without that plea.

[islandgirl]

Yes agreed thank you. Your detailed explanations are always very helpful and much appreciated.

[PirateAndy]

It would not help at all. In fact it would make the job of the police easier. Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders’ Act covers the service of NIPs. It does not cover service of the accompanying s172 request, but since they are invariably printed on the same sheet of paper, the effect is the same. It says this:

“A notice shall be deemed…to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.”

So they could send you a NIP by recorded mail, you could simply refuse to sign for it (or it was not delivered for any other reason) and it would still have been “served” on you. Since the s172 request was on the same sheet of paper, I cannot see a court deciding that the request was not served on you as well.

The “presumption of service” for a NIP sent in the ordinary post is rebuttable – that is, you have the opportunity to persuade the court that it did not arrive. Because of the provision in s1 of the RTOA, that same presumption for a NIP sent by recorded or registered mail (or whatever the equivalents are now called) is not rebuttable. The police have only to prove it was posted and even if you could prove it did not arrive, it is still deemed “served”.

It is quite correct that some courts deal with this process without the driver’s attendance being required. But many don’t. And in any case, even if the court involved did, I strongly suspect you would have been required to attend for reasons which have been pointed out and elsewhere. Basically, because of your extensive explanation of what happened, your pleas were seen as not entirely unequivocal. You can argue about that until the cows come home, but the decision has been made and you are where you are.



That is incorrect, IG. If the prosecutor agrees to the defendant’s offer, the FtP charge is dropped and no evidence will be offered. The defendant has to do nothing to defend that charge in those circumstances.

I don't understand why the two sentences I wrote were considered or are considered "extensive" and "equivocal". The online form asked to tick a box for each offence: Either Guilty or Not Guilty. I ticked Not Guilty for both. Seems pretty unequivocal to me.

Then the form asked for reasons for my pleas. So I gave the honest reasons. I wrote the following verbatim:

Offence 1: The Speeding
I am willing to plead guilty to this offence if, and only if, the charge for the second offence of failing to provide information is dropped. I outline the reason for this in my reply to the second offence. Please see below:

Offence 2: Failure to ID driver
I have not received any correspondence regarding the speeding offence until 24/12/2025 with the receipt of the SJPN.


So can someone explain to me how this is confusing to anyone with a basic understanding of the English language???

[HandyAndy]

I shouldn’t think anyone on here – with or without a basic understanding of the English language - can do more than hazard a guess. Have you thought of asking the court?