Ask a Traffic Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
Hi, welcome to JustAnswer. My name is*****’m a barrister with 12 years of experience and I am happy to help with your question today.
What would you like to know about this?
Did you name the driver unequivocally?
Ok, so you didn't name the driver unequivocally.
The issue is not whether you responded. The issue is that you did not name the driver unequivocally. The forms are quite clear. If you have named several possible drivers that isn't naming the driver without equivocation.
No you didn't. You gave them several names.
You can defend the allegation on the basis that you couldn't find the driver with reasonable diligence but you have the burden of proof.
They are perfectly entitled to charge you. They don't have too many options really.
Can I clarify anything for you?
That is not what you said above.
I Put down the full name and address of the other possible driver and then as months went by i figured that is the end of it and never spared it a second thought. My question is. Is it lawful for a S172 failure to furnish charge be placed on me but they have failed to disclose on the statement of facts any information relating to the letter they sent out on 19th May which told me I had 7 days to reply.
That is what you said. That is not naming the driver without equivocation.
No, you should probably be pleading guilty.
You haven't named the driver unequivocally. The forms are perfectly clear.
The forms demand that you name the driver. There isn't really a way of misinterpreting them.
If you want to contest this you can take the steps I mentioned above but then you have to prove what steps you took to identify the driver.
Not for S172.
The disclosure regime isn't engaged.