Failing to Provide Details Under S172 RTA 1988 banner

Services

Home / Services / Road Traffic Offences / Failing to Provide Details Under S172 RTA 1988

Failing to Provide Driver Details Under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988: The Law and Available Defences

Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 places a legal obligation on the registered keeper of a vehicle to provide the identity of the driver if requested by the police in connection with an alleged road traffic offence.

Failure to provide these details, without a reasonable excuse, is itself a criminal offence and can result in significant penalties, including fines and penalty points.

At Allen Hoole Solicitors, we have extensive experience in defending both individuals and companies facing charges under Section 172. Our team of experienced solicitor advocates has successfully argued numerous cases, helping clients avoid penalty points and fines where there has been a legitimate defence. As the largest criminal defence firm in the South West of England, we offer unparalleled expertise and resources in motoring law.

The Law on Failing to Provide Driver Details

Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires the registered keeper of a vehicle to provide the identity of the driver at a specific time, if asked by the police or another authority in connection with an alleged offence such as speeding, dangerous driving, or other road traffic violations.

If the registered keeper fails to provide this information within the required timeframe (usually 28 days), they are liable for prosecution under Section 172. The penalties for this offence include:

  • A fine of up to £1,000,
  • 6 penalty points on the driving licence,
  • Possible disqualification in severe cases.

For companies, failing to identify the driver can also result in prosecution, with the company itself being fined if the police deem that reasonable steps were not taken to identify the driver responsible for the vehicle at the time of the offence.

Available Defences for Failing to Provide Driver Details

While Section 172 is strict, there are several defences available that may allow individuals or companies to avoid conviction. At Allen Hoole Solicitors, we are highly experienced in identifying and presenting these defences effectively.

Reasonable Diligence Defence

The most common defence for individuals is that they exercised reasonable diligence in trying to identify the driver but were unable to do so. For this defence to succeed, the registered keeper must demonstrate that they made every reasonable effort to determine who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. This might include:

  • Checking diaries, work schedules, or other records,
  • Asking other potential drivers of the vehicle,
  • Looking for evidence such as CCTV or mobile phone records.

If it can be shown that, despite taking reasonable steps, it was impossible to identify the driver, the court may accept this as a valid defence.

Not the Registered Keeper

In some cases, the recipient of the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) may no longer be the registered keeper of the vehicle. For example, if the car has been sold or transferred to another individual, the former keeper may not be legally required to provide the driver's details if they were not in control of the vehicle at the time of the offence.

Lack of Knowledge or Awareness

For companies, particularly those with a large fleet of vehicles, it can sometimes be difficult to identify the specific driver at the time of an offence. However, this defence must be used carefully. The company must show that it had proper procedures in place for monitoring who was driving each vehicle, but that despite these systems, it was not possible to identify the driver on this occasion.

Reasonable Excuse

In some situations, an individual may have a reasonable excuse for failing to provide driver details. This could include situations where:

  • The notice was not received in time,
  • The person was unwell or had a medical condition that prevented them from responding within the required timeframe,
  • There was a breakdown in communication (e.g., postal issues).

Procedural Errors

There may be cases where the police or other authorities failed to follow the proper procedures when sending the request for driver details. If there is evidence that the request was not made lawfully, the case could be dismissed on procedural grounds.

Why Legal Representation is Important

Given the complexity of Section 172 cases and the potential for severe penalties, it is essential to have expert legal representation. At Allen Hoole Solicitors, we are experienced in representing both individuals and companies in these cases, providing tailored advice and a strong defence. Our team will thoroughly examine all aspects of the case to identify any evidential weaknesses, procedural errors, or technical defences that can be used in your favour.

Why Choose Allen Hoole Solicitors?

As the largest firm in the South West of England, Allen Hoole Solicitors has an advantage in handling complex motoring cases. Our team of highly experienced solicitor advocates has successfully defended countless clients facing charges under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and we have access to the best resources and experts in the field.

If you are facing charges for failing to provide driver details, contact Allen Hoole Solicitors today for expert advice and representation. We are here to help ensure that your case is handled professionally and with the best possible outcome.