AC-2025-LON-000004 - [2025] EWHC 2798 (Admin)

At around 2 pm on 17 January 2024, a person drove a Renault Master van on the offside lane of the M5 motorway while pulling a trailer.

That was an offence contrary to regulation 12(2) of the Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) Regulations 1982, section 17(4) of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

According to records held by DVLA, the registered keeper of that vehicle was a company called Million Rides, with a registered address at 11 Granville Road, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, LE13 0SN.

On 18 January 2024, a Notice of Intended Prosecution was sent to the company at that address along with a response form requiring the company to provide the information set out in section 172(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

There was no response to that Notice, and so the police sent a further Notice to the company at the same address on 16 February 2024. Again, there was no response.

The police investigated and found that the only person who had been insured to drive that motor vehicle on 17 January 2024 was the Respondent, whose home address was the same as the registered address of the company.

The Respondent had previously been a registered director of the company, but by the date of the offence on 17 January 2024 he was no longer a director.

The police also discovered that the Respondent had become the registered keeper of the motor vehicle on 28 February 2024 in place of the company.

By that date (28 February 2024), the company had already been sent two Notices and two response forms at its registered address, which was also the Respondent’s home address.

On 8 March 2024, the police sent a further Notice and response form to the Respondent at his home address in his capacity as the keeper of the vehicle at that time.

The Respondent did not respond to those documents. A reminder notice was sent to him at his home address on 8 April 2024.

On 17 April 2024, the police received the response form from the Respondent that he had been sent on 8 March 2024. The response form was dated 8 April 2024. The precise content of the form and the responses are important, and I set them out below. On the first page of the letter from the police it states:

“BY LAW UNDER SECTION 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY THE INFORMATION ABOVE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE. THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION IS A FINE OF UP TO £1000 AND 6 PENALTY POINTS” [capitals in original]

In Section A, Question 1 reads – “Were you the driver at the time of the alleged offence?”, to which the Respondent had ticked the box ‘No’. The form then required him to complete Sections B and C.

Section B required the Respondent to tick the relevant box and fill in Section C. It is entirely clear from the form that Section C must be filled in.

In Section B, the first box is marked:

“I was not the driver at the time of the alleged offence. Details of the driver are provided below.

(Now complete Section C with the new driver details)”

The Respondent did not tick that box.

The third box in Section C is marked

“At the time of the alleged offence I was not the owner / keeper. I had sold / purchased / disposed / returned the vehicle before / after the alleged offence.

(Now complete Section C with details of the new keeper / previous keeper).”

Beneath those words, next to the words “Date of Sale / Purchase”, the Respondent wrote “28 02 2024”. He then signed Section B and dated it 8 April 2024. I note that there is no requirement on the form to delete the parts of the sentence above that do not apply. There is therefore some potential for confusion by the police as to exactly what is being stated.

The Respondent left Section C blank.

On 17 April 2024, the police sent a further Notice and response form to the Respondent at his home address. That letter read as follows:

“I write in reference to your responses to the above numbered notice where you have stated that you sold this vehicle on 28.02.24.

The offence date is prior to this sale, therefore, you are required to give driver details on the enclosed form.

I enclose a copy of the photographic evidence to assist.”

It appears that the police were under the mistaken impression that the Respondent had stated in his response that he had sold the vehicle on 28 February 2024, and thus that he had been the keeper of the vehicle on 17 January 2024 and in a position to identify the driver on that date.

However, the Respondent actually meant that he had purchased the vehicle on 28 February 2024 and hence that he had not been the keeper of the vehicle on 17 January 2024. This was despite the fact that he had been the only person insured to drive the vehicle on that date.

On 26 April 2024, the Respondent sent to the police another version of the response form he had completed on 8 April 2024. The information in that form was the same as the information in the form dated 8 April 2024, only this time the form bore the date 26 April 2024. The police received that reply on 29 April 2024.

On 22 May 2024, the police sent a further Notice and response form to the Respondent, again asking him to identify the driver from 17 January 2024. The Respondent did not reply to that letter.