The section 172 request: naming the driver
Checked 17 July 2026 · How we check our figures
What it is
The section 172 request is how the law finds the person behind a detected vehicle: the keeper must give such information as to the driver's identity as is required, and anyone else asked must give whatever is in their power that may lead to it, s. 172(2) Road Traffic Act 1988. Drivers call it the who-was-driving form. What the form does not say is how narrow the exits are, and that a signed reply naming yourself can itself stand as evidence of who drove, s. 12 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Reading the notice
The sender line reads by or on behalf of the chief officer of police, and the courts have held a printed notice needs no personal signature from the sender, Arnold v DPP, while the reply's required form, including a signature, may be insisted on, Francis v DPP; both are case law, not statute.
The 28-day line belongs to this request alone: a written requirement served by post allows 28 days to reply, and reply by post suffices, s. 172(7); the 14-day clock on the Notice of Intended Prosecution is a different instrument with its own guide.
The two answer boxes carry the two duties: the keeper box answers s. 172(2)(a), the not-the-driver box answers s. 172(2)(b), and a company keeper owes the duty itself, with its officers exposed alongside it for a failure, s. 172.
The decision in front of you
Name yourself within the 28 days: the underlying case proceeds on its own track, fixed penalty, course offer or prosecution, each with its guide; the signed reply can serve as evidence of the driver's identity, s. 12 RTOA 1988, which is the form doing its job rather than a trap.
Name someone else: their notice follows, and the standard for anyone other than the keeper is information in your power that may lead to identification, s. 172(2)(b), not certainty.
Answer that you cannot say who drove: the keeper's defence is exacting, that you did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained the driver, s. 172(4); the courts have made shrugging households carry the burden of showing real effort, Marshall v CPS being the standing example, case law rather than statute.
Silence is its own offence with its own price: 6 penalty points, raised from 3 on 24 September 2007, s. 29 Road Safety Act 2006, plus a fine, and the underlying allegation does not dissolve; a course offer has no one to attach to while the reply is missing either.
What happens next
After a naming, the file moves to the named person's letterbox and the ordinary chain resumes: Notice of Intended Prosecution mechanics, the conditional offer or a course, then the Single Justice Procedure if unresolved, each covered in its own guide.
A prosecution for the s. 172 failure itself runs through the Single Justice Procedure like any summary matter; the reasonable-diligence defence is evidence work, diaries, insurance records and who-had-the-keys detail, not assertion.
The 6 points land on the record like any others and count toward totting on the usual clocks, unpacked in the totting up guide.
The numbers
Failure to identify: 6 penalty points, raised from 3 on 24 September 2007 (s. 29 Road Safety Act 2006), plus a fine.
Postal requests: 28 days to reply, s. 172(7) RTA 1988 (gov.uk, checked 2026-07-16).
For the underlying speeding allegation's money and points: see the speeding calculator at /fines/speeding, figures dated there.
The deadlines
28 days from service of a written requirement to reply, s. 172(7); the clock is the request's own, separate from the Notice of Intended Prosecution's 14 days.
A late reply can still be saved where the information came as soon as reasonably practicable, s. 172(7)(b).
If the matter is prosecuted, the written charge must come within 6 months, s. 127 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, on the clocks the single justice guide explains.
What people get wrong
Returning the form unsigned where a signature is required: the required form may be insisted on, Francis v DPP, and arguing the point spends the 28 days.
Answering it was not me and stopping there: s. 172(2)(b) asks for whatever is in your power that may lead to identification, and an empty denial gives none of it.
Naming someone who was not driving: prosecutors treat a false naming as perverting the course of justice, an imprisonable offence, which is a different order of trouble from any speeding ticket.
Authority
s. 172 Road Traffic Act 1988; s. 12 and Schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988; s. 29 Road Safety Act 2006; s. 127 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980; Arnold v DPP, Francis v DPP, Marshall v CPS (case law); gov.uk