It's not failure to furnish, it's potentially "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" (which is imprisonable).

There have been a number of such cases brought in very similar circumstances to this some of which have led to custodial sentences.

A public forum is not the best place for the OP to further discuss his case. He needs private advice and legal assistance and should contact me via asklucy@honestjohn.co.uk providing a telephone number so we can discuss how we can best deal with this.

Edited by LucyBC on 27/05/2011 at 08:43

The police believe either the named driver does not exist, was not the driver, may not have been in the UK at the time. They see this come up that often that they almost never back down.

The various options used are:

• Admission of keeper (or a UK driver) for original offence
• Section 172 offence,
• Permit, no insurance - usually because the person cannot show that the alleged foreign driver was covered for the car at the time
• Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
• or of course acceptance that the driver was insured to drive the vehicle in the UK at the time and was driving the car at the time of the offence.

As I said earlier this is not the place to discuss the details of this case and you are not helping anyone.

The OP is potentially in very serious trouble. The S172 carries 6 points, the permit - no insurance 6-8 points, both with a substantial fine (up to £1000) likely, and the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice a prison sentence.

It makes no sense to say that "you have furnished the information" and hence you are OK. The police clearly believe that incorrect information has been furnished and hence other offences become a distinct possibility, indeed likely.

In respect of your comments, anyone can post here but the idea of having a legal "expert" was to eliminate misinformation and - on legal issues - have some kind of definitive advice rather than the free-for-all of unguided missiles which exists in other forums.

In respect of your abuse (of both me and this website) over the last year or so I must have written many thousands of words of legal advice for honestjohn.co.uk, all for free.

True, on some occasions that advice has generated some civil litigation work against garages and dealers for my firm which we have almost always done on a no-win-no-fee basis (where we only charge a pre-agreed fee if we reach a pre-agreed outcome). As far as I am aware we are the only legal firm willing to work on this basis in the motor sector. We have many testimonials from people we have so-assisted who would otherwise have been denied access to justice.

My own firm do not do motor offences so I provide basic advice in this area and if I think it is necessary or serious enough I will get a lawyer from another firm -- probably the best motor offence solicitor in the country -- to call and do a free detailed advice call, which is what happened in this case. If the client then decides to instruct then fine, if not then also fine. I have no financial interest whatsoever in any subsequent transaction or work generated - and neither does honestjohn.co,uk. I don't know where else you could get that level of service without having to pay for it.

In respect of your reasons for stopping posting here, whenever you seem to visit the purpose seems to be entirely for the purpose of slagging the website off as evidenced in this thread:

www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=90898&...9

If all you want to do is come in, give bad advice and then throw your weight about when someone who knows more corrects you, then I am not sure what benefits you bring to what is normally a very polite community.

Edited by LucyBC on 27/05/2011 at 16:18

Not sure what you are wombling on about but I head a professional legal team which has provided legal help to motorists for more than 15 years.

I have a great deal of legal knowledge on the subject of motor offences, accidents and consumer disputes.

If you want to challenge me on the issues please supply details of your legal experience to the forum on which you wish to propose to rely.

If you have no legal experience and nothing worthwhile or qualifications worth mentioning on which you wish to rely, don't bother.

Edited by LucyBC on 27/05/2011 at 19:54

...giving helpful advice and sticking to the issue...

At least I stick to the issue, unlike the legal expert who seems only intent on character assassination.

I cannot be the only reader of this section who has concluded the 'answer' to many queries is 'contact Lucy'.

Nothing wrong with that, but it also seems to be a guillotine on discussion.

I thought when someone posted a question on an internet forum they were expecting advice/views from the forum's readership.

If this section is literally 'ask Lucy', then only she should be allowed to post replies on it.

Or it should be clearly stated that disagreeing with Lucy is absolutely not allowed.

Although I think I probably knew that already.

...but if he's rude and unhelpful again I'll censor him...

Avant,

I'm still waiting for someone to point out where I've been rude.

I'll add you to the list.

The idea of censoring someone on a forum because you think they are unhelpful makes FIFA look democratic.

It's also laughable, although I imagine you don't mean it to be.

Aaah ... it was Blatter driving then ....

I rest my case ;-)