facing a very difficult situation of a lengthy ban Dominic managed to fight my corner which resulted in a more manageable short term ban. What I liked about Dominic was that he was very straight talking and was very honest. … Continued
Failure to Provide Driver Details
Section 172, Road Traffic Act 1988
The law provides the police with wide powers to ascertain the identity of the person driving a vehicle at the time of any alleged motoring offence. Frequently referred to as the “172 Requirement” the police can require the registered keeper of a vehicle to identify the driver of the vehicle at a particular time. The requirement also extends to anyone else who is able to provide relevant information about the identity of a driver at a particular time.
Failure to provide information about the identity of a driver at a particular time, when required to do so by the police, is an offence under Section 172. The requirement should not be confused with the right to “remain silent” or make “no comment” in respect of other offences or police procedure. Accordingly, you must comply with the 172 Requirement. If you are not sure what to do you should contact us immediately.
Why Choose Us?
"I firmly believe every motorist is entitled to expert road traffic advice"
- We offer FREE confidential advice to all potential clients.
- We provide an HONEST assessment of your situation.
- We offer affordable FIXED fee pricing
- We exclusively SPECIALISE in this area of the law
I was facing multiple charges and Dominic sorted Everything out. I’m absolutely delighted by the outcome. And would recommend him to anyone needing a traffic lawyer.
Recently hired Dominic for a speeding charge I recieved. My experience was first class from start to finish upfront cost no hidden charges and communication from Dominic at all times was amazing only a phonecall away.
Many thanks for all your efforts in getting the speeding charge against me dropped. I would have no hesitation in recommending the services of you and your firm. From the outset you were very clear about the process and procedures … Continued
I would like to express my gratitude to Mr Sellar for the way in which he represented me when faced with a dangerous driving charge or alternatively speeding charge. He came across as knowledgeable and professional with his advice that … Continued
My brother recently used the services of Dominic Sellar & Co for a traffic offence, and we’re very glad he did! The charges against him were dropped, in no small measure down to the expertise of Dominic. Wouldn’t hesitate to … Continued
I would like to thank Dominic and his team for a great outcome in court. I would highly recommend him to anyone facing traffic charges. His fee was also very reasonable.
From the start to the end Mr Sellar came Cross as a highly intelligent man and it wasn’t until in the courtroom the real level of his intelligence and knowledge for traffic law shone through. The end result is, I … Continued
Thank You so much for representing me in my court cases. I am more than happy to provide a recommendation…
I would like to express my sincere thanks to you for the care and attention you showed to my mum when you recently represented her in court. This was an extremely anxious time for my mum and your professional yet … Continued
Thank you for getting the very best result for me today. I truly appreciate the expertise and knowledge that you have and how this has enabled me to retain my very precious driving license. I will have no hesitation in … Continued
Thank you so much for all your help and representation with my case at Lanark Sheriff Court. My license is essential, your expect advice and representation at trial saved my licence and my job. Thanks again, I would highly recommend … Continued
The penalties for non-compliance of the 172 Requirement are 6 penalty points and a fine of up £1000. The court also has the power to impose a period of disqualification. Even if you were not the driver at the time of the original offence you could still receive 6 penalty points for failing to provide the relevant information to the police.
Separate charges for attempting to pervert the course of justice can be raised if you name someone else as the driver when you know they were not. The MP Chris Hume and his wife were imprisoned for falsely identifying who the driver was in respect of a minor road traffic offence which carried penalty points and a fine.
The requirement to furnish information is particularly used in Traffic Light and Speed Camera cases where the driver is not immediately stopped and the police do not know who was driving at the time. In such a case the police will issue a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP), together with a requirement to identity the driver, to the registered keeper of the vehicle. A period of 28 days is usually provided within which to respond. If no response is forthcoming the police can bring a charge against the registered keeper of the vehicle, or any other person, for failing to provide the relevant information. In all cases it is essential that the prosecution prove that the request or notice for information was sent and was not returned.
In addition to being charged with failing to identify a driver a person may also be prosecuted for the original offence that led to the enquiry in the first place, such as running a red light or speeding. Arguably such an approach is unfair because the authorities have charged someone on the basis that they do not know the identity of the driver who committed the original offence. However, the approach may work to your advantage if the original charge carries fewer penalty points.
The terms of a 172 Requirement impose strict duties on people to clearly identify a driver. Individuals who ignore or seek to evade the requirement by claiming that they simply “don’t know” will find themselves on the wrong side of a prosecution. Of course, such a response is wholly understandable, especially if you are unexpectedly visited by the police about a motoring offence that took place some time ago. In such circumstances you should ask for and be given sufficient time within which to make enquiries about who was driving your vehicle at a particular time.
The law allows a person charged with failing to identify the driver of a vehicle to rely on the statutory defence of “Reasonable Diligence”. In short, this means that you have made a real effort and taken all practical steps to find out who was driving. The onus is therefore on you to establish that you do not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, ascertain the identity of the driver.
Further defences may be available if you can establish that the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) was not received by you or that your reply to it was not received by the police.
How we can help
As with most other motoring offences, contraventions under section 172 are complex and difficult to defend. If you have received a “172 Requirement” or have been charged with failing to identify a driver it is important to obtain expert advice from a specialist road traffic lawyer as quickly as possible. Our experience and expertise in this area will determine the best option for you. Getting the right advice can save time and expense. It can also save your licence. We pride ourselves in offering a service that is friendly, honest and reliable. For free advice that is without pressure or obligation simply contact us:
E-Mail Us Today or call 0790 55 00 870
Free Consultation and Advice
Request a call back
Send a message
Use this form to send us a message or request a call back. We will respond immediately.