Thanks for advice thus far. I will clarify the position - I was asking on behalf of a friend (Sarah Baker) who is uncertain what to do. She did fill in a S172 form, giving her name as the driver, but she sent this in with a letter saying she didnt have an alternative as she could not identify the driver for the reasons I have explained.....the South Wales Police then rejected her correspondence as "it cannot be accepted as evidence upon which to continue the Fixed Penalty process". The matter was then handed placed in the Court file for prosecution....etc.
The letter from South Wales Police comments that "the keeper shall not be guilty of any offence if he or she can prove that reasonable diligence was used to attempt the required identification, as per s172(4)".
I would like to know (please!) what constitutes reasonable due diligence in this case given the following:-
1. The traffic light offence was committed on 12th September 2013.
2. Notice of Intended Prosecution (with a driver information form) was not served until 21st November 2013.
3. The car was in a pool during the day and no log was then kept of staff usage during the day. Miss Baker however spoke to all members of staff who were entitled to use the car and none could specifically recall using it on that date, which by then was a couple of months before. In each case their diaries were checked for appointments and so on. Use of pool cars at her office was apparently commonplace. Witness statements could be provided to confirm all this. Would this be all constitute "reasonable due diligence"?
4. Also, please note that she does have a credible witness to the fact that could could not have used the car at that time herself.
Finally, as the Police have already confirmed "there is no identified driver with whom to deal" (their letter January 7th), can they still proceed with the traffic light offence which is still listed on the Plea Form?
Thanks.....I await your wise counsel.
Miss Baker is the manager of the office where there are 8 other staff. It is a busy recruitment agency. There was one other car in the pool with hers, and the staff had to use either of these when out and about. There was no log at the time because it was not thought necessary in a relatively small office, although a log is now kept.
Any view on how this would go down in court?
Also, did you have a look at my last question - can the prosecution for the traffic light still go ahead?
We are going to think about this overnight. Thank you for your advice thus far.