Understanding Section 172 Offences - When notices go unreceived

It can be incredibly frustrating to find yourself facing a criminal charge for failing to respond to a notice you are adamant you never received. You're not trying to avoid responsibility - you simply didn't know there was anything to respond to. Yet, under current Magistrates’ Court procedures, Failure to Provide Information can still lead to serious consequences.

As a criminal defence lawyer working in road traffic law, I regularly represent individuals who are caught up in this exact situation. The system is intended to promote road safety, but it doesn’t always account for the issues that prevent people from complying with it. From misdirected post to digital barriers, there are often innocent explanations for failure to respond and yet the impact of a court hearing can be disproportionately stressful for the people involved.

What is a Section 172 notice?

A Section 172 notice is a legal requirement under the Road Traffic Act 1988 for the registered keeper of a vehicle to provide the police with details of the driver at the time of an alleged road traffic offence (e.g. speeding). Failure to respond to a Section 172 notice is a criminal offence and will usually result in a court hearing. 

Despite often arising from simple administrative issues, such as missed or misdirected post, the offence  carries six penalty points and a fine of up to £1,000, making it a serious matter.

In many cases, it’s this offence  - rather than the underlying speeding offence - that pushes individuals over the 12-point threshold, placing them at risk of disqualification even when they were unaware of the notice in the first place.

Examples of Postal Failures and Missed Opportunities

Unintentional oversight leads to a missed opportunity to change behaviour

The purpose of a Notice of Intended Prosecution is primarily to inform a driver of an alleged offence, but it also acts as a timely deterrent.

Receiving a notice shortly after a speeding incident often prompts drivers to reflect on their conduct and adjust their driving accordingly. It can be a wake-up call that encourages safer speeds and behaviour going forward.

A client received eight Notices of Intended Prosecution on the same day, all relating to separate speeding offences. The client had forgotten to update the address on their V5C logbook following a house move; an oversight that many might make unintentionally. The result was a sudden accumulation of offences and points with no opportunity to change their driving behaviour.

In this case, the opportunity to improve driving behaviour was lost. As the notices were not received in real time, the pattern of speeding continued without interruption, leaving the client facing multiple charges that, in other circumstances, might have been entirely avoidable

Totting up disqualification avoided through exceptional hardship application

At Guildford Magistrates’ Court, a client faced a potential disqualification under the “totting up” rules after accruing 15 points. This included four speeding offences which my client only became aware of when the notices arrived together - months after the offences had taken place. They had initially been sent to a previous address, despite her attempts to update her details with the DVLA.

Due to a previous brain injury, the client finds online forms and digital processes particularly challenging. She contacted the DVLA by phone but the address change was not actioned. As a result, the notices were missed. Fortunately, the court accepted our exceptional hardship application, recognising the significant effect a disqualification would have, not just on her, but also on her son with ADHD, her elderly parents, and others who depend on her support.

As more administrative functions move online, drivers who are not digitally confident or have specific cognitive difficulties are increasingly disadvantaged. Updating addresses, dealing with notices, or even requesting documentation can become daunting or confusing tasks for some individuals. This can lead to situations where people unintentionally fall foul of the law; not through any deliberate act, but because the system didn’t accommodate their circumstances.

Pre-charge engagement

In another case, a client received a notice from the Court with three speeding offences and three associated Section 172 charges, despite never having seen the original requests. Due to confusing street signs and longstanding delivery issues in her area, post was routinely misdelivered.

Under our pre-charge engagement service, we submitted representations to the prosecution, supported by witness statements and location evidence, asking for a withdrawal of the Section 172 charges on evidential and public interest grounds.

Defending Section 172 Offences: Rebutting the Presumption of Service

A common defence to Section 172 charges is to rebut the presumption that the notice was properly served. Under the Interpretation Act 1978, service of the notice is usually presumed if a notice has been correctly addressed and posted. However, this presumption is not absolute. Where there is credible evidence, such as consistent non-receipt of post, incorrect address details, or known delivery issues, this presumption can be challenged.

A defendant must show that it is more likely than not that the notice was not received. However, it is not enough to simply turn up to court and say that you didn’t receive the notice. We frequently act for clients to assist them in gathering evidence to support their case.

If the court accepts that the notice did not come to the driver’s attention through no fault of their own, it may find that it was not “reasonably practicable” for them to respond - providing a statutory defence under Section 172(7)(b) of the Road Traffic Act. These are often technical but important cases where careful evidence gathering, and clear presentation make all the difference.

Supporting Clients at Every Stage

Whether through early pre-charge engagement with prosecutors to get charges withdrawn or formal exceptional hardship applications and/or advancing a defence at court, our role is to ensure that our clients' cases are heard in their full context.

Losing a driving licence for several months can be manageable for some, but for others - especially carers, those with health issues, or people living in areas with limited transport - it creates real practical problems. It can make it much harder to care for family, attend medical appointments, or access work opportunities.

If you’re facing a driving offence and believe the system hasn’t worked as it should, or if you are facing a court hearing for a Section 172 offence, we are here to help.