Under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, vehicle owners and certain other individuals may be legally required to provide information identifying the driver of a vehicle at the time an alleged motoring offence occurred. If the driver cannot be identified and the requested information is not supplied, a separate offence may be committed.
In simple terms, the registered keeper of a vehicle must provide details of who was driving when requested by the authorities. In addition, any other person who may have relevant information that could help identify the driver may also be required to provide it.
Allegations of failing to provide driver details are often legally complex and should be examined carefully before responding.
Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP)
When a motoring offence is detected and the driver is not stopped at the scene, the police will normally contact the registered keeper of the vehicle. This is usually done by sending a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) within 14 days of the alleged offence.
The notice will include a request for driver information under Section 172. The recipient is then given 28 days from the date the notice is received to provide the requested details.
Providing the requested information does not mean admitting guilt. It simply allows the police to determine who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence so they can continue their investigation.
Penalties for Failing to Provide Driver Details
If the requested driver information is not provided within the required time frame, the individual may be charged with failing to provide driver details.
The typical penalty for this offence is:
- 6 penalty points on the driving licence
- A fine of up to £1,000
In many situations, the penalty for failing to provide driver details can be more serious than the original motoring offence.
Different Responsibilities: Registered Keeper vs Other Individuals
The law places different obligations on the registered keeper of the vehicle and other individuals who may have information.
If you are the registered keeper, you must provide the information requested regarding the driver’s identity. This normally means supplying the name and address of the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
If you are not the registered keeper, your responsibility is slightly different. In that situation, you are only required to provide any information that is reasonably within your knowledge or control that could help identify the driver.
This distinction can be important when determining whether a legal obligation has been fulfilled.
When the Driver Cannot Be Identified
Sometimes the registered keeper genuinely does not know who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. In these situations, it may be possible to raise a defence if it can be shown that reasonable diligence was exercised in trying to identify the driver.
Reasonable diligence is not strictly defined in legislation and will ultimately be decided by the court based on the facts of the case.
A person relying on this defence must demonstrate two things:
- That they did not know who the driver was
- That they took reasonable steps to try to find out
Simply stating that the driver is unknown will not usually be enough. Evidence showing the steps taken to investigate the issue may be required.
Importantly, providing incorrect information or guessing the driver’s identity can lead to far more serious consequences, including allegations of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Requesting Evidence From the Police
If you are unsure who was driving the vehicle, it may be possible to request assistance from the police by asking for any available photographs relating to the alleged offence.
Some police forces will provide images that may help identify the driver. However, this is not guaranteed, and any request should be made promptly to ensure there is still time to respond within the 28-day period.
Failure to provide adequate information within the required timeframe can result in a court summons for a Section 172 offence.
Possible Legal Defences
There are several potential defences depending on the circumstances of the case.
One possible defence arises where it was not reasonably practicable to provide the requested information within the 28-day period. For example, if the notice was never received or arrived after significant delay.
In such situations, a person may still have a defence if they provided the information as soon as reasonably practicable once they became aware of the request.
Issues With Postal Delivery
Notices requesting driver information are normally sent by first-class post. Although this method is considered legally reliable, postal errors do sometimes occur.
If a notice was never received, it may be possible to challenge the assumption that the notice was successfully delivered. However, supporting evidence will usually be required.
Examples may include:
- previous issues with postal delivery
- evidence that the individual was away from the address for an extended period
- documentation showing mail redirection arrangements
Courts generally require more than a simple statement that the notice did not arrive.
When a Response Is Lost in the Post
In some cases, the recipient may have completed and returned the required information, but the police claim they never received it.
If there is evidence showing that the response was sent, such as copies of the documents or witness confirmation that the letter was posted, this may help support a defence.
Some police forces issue reminder notices where a response has not been recorded, although this is not a legal requirement.
Company Vehicles and Corporate Responsibility
Companies and other organisations can also face prosecution for failing to provide driver details.
Where a company vehicle is involved, the organisation may be required to identify who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. If the company fails to provide this information, it may face legal proceedings and potentially significant financial penalties.
Although companies cannot receive penalty points, individuals within the organisation — such as directors, managers or company secretaries — may still face personal responsibility if the failure to provide information resulted from negligence or deliberate inaction.
Record-Keeping and Reasonable Diligence
Where companies rely on the defence that they used reasonable diligence to identify the driver, they will often need to show that appropriate systems were in place to record who was using company vehicles.
If proper records were not maintained, the court will consider whether it was reasonable for the company not to have kept such records given the nature of the business and how vehicles were used.
Seeking Legal Advice
Every case involving Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 depends on its specific facts. If you or your company are facing an allegation of failing to provide driver details, it is advisable to obtain legal advice before responding.
Even where it appears that the information cannot be provided, there may still be potential legal arguments available. Careful review of the evidence and the prosecution paperwork may reveal issues that could affect the outcome of the case.
If the authorities proceed with both the original motoring allegation and the failing to provide driver details offence, it is not unusual for both matters to be pursued until the case reaches court. In such circumstances, preparing a clear and well-supported defence can be crucial.
