S.172 Is A Sledge Hammer!

Question:

A red light offence occurred and as the vehicle it was registered to was a company vehicle and no one would lay claim to have been driving at this time, a request was made for photographic evidence.

Unfortunately the evidence was inconclusive so further correspondence was forwarded requesting guidance on what the next course of action was.

To this we received no reply and foolishly thought that was the end of the matter. Then a summons was received notifying my husband xx of an intention to prosecute for with holding the name of the driver (s.172 offence).

The paper work was completed and a plea of not guilty was lodged. In the statement to court it was made quite clear that it had never been the intention to with hold any information, we simply did not know what the next step was.

We also highlighted the fact that closer control is now in force over who is driving company vehicles when.

This was duly sent off and another summons was received for the x re the not guilty plea.

By this point I was beyond frustration and anger at how this situation was proceeding and sent another very heated letter stating that we wish we had of just lied in the beginning and said one of us as The Directors of the company was driving to save all the stress, and we wished now wish to admit liability to the original driving offence.

Another summons was received changing the date to the 8th June. We were under the impression this was in relation to the red light offence.

When my husband arrived at court, he realised it was for the with holding offence and was advised by the prosecutor to plead guilty as if he did not and was found guilty it would be far more serious.

This has now resulted in points on his licence and a £500 fine! As he has 6 points on his license he is sailing very close to disqualification.

My husband drives for a living (he is a x) and can not afford to carry points for offences he did not commit.

I would be grateful of your advice as to whether we have any way to turn.

I wish I had of just put my details in right back at the beginning!

Dominic says:

Good to speak to you and your husband. Your husband had a potential defence on the basis that he gave all the information that was within his power to give. He was being asked to name the driver and he did not have that information. He was not asked to name any potential drivers.

The court may take the view that he should have named all potential drivers. I think he has reasonable prospects of succeeding and I would do my utmost to try and get the prosecution not to pursue this matter.

You also need to consider the issue that he succeeded with his exceptional hardship argument. If we do reopen this case and lose we would have to make that argument again but he has good prospects in that regard.