Back in March 2010 I received a NIP stating my car had been photographed doing 45mph in a 30 mph zone. I had recently acquired the vehicle and on that day I had met up with two other family members. After showing them my car, I took them for a quick drive in the car and then both of them took turns to have a quick drive (all up and down the same road) as they were both considering the purchase of a new car. I replied to the NIP by saying that three insured drivers had all had a quick drive up and down the road past the camera that day and we did not know who was driving at the time, so requested the photos. The photos arrived, along with the admission that they had reviewed the photographs and as the photos were from the rear identifying the driver was not possible. It also stated that the purpose of the photo was to prove the offence not identify the driver, and that was the keeper's responsibility. I responded by saying that the three possible drivers had all studied the photos, but to no avail.

I acknowledged my responsibility but also stated that under RTA 1988 Subsection 172(4) that I had exercised at the very least 'reasonable diligence' in my efforts to ascertain the driver but could not. I received a response saying that I had a legal obligation to provide the details of the driver and that because I had not, consideration would now be given to the commencement of proceedings against me. And if such proceedings did take place it would be up to the magistrate to decide whether I had exercised 'reasonable diligence' or not.

I have now received a summons for failing to provide the driver details. Have I exercised reasonable diligence, could I have done more and what do I do now?