When a camera catches a vehicle, the police do not know who was driving. So the paperwork to the registered keeper almost always includes a demand: tell us who it was. That demand has teeth, and the teeth are sharper than the original offence.
What section 172 actually requires
Under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the police can require the registered keeper of a vehicle, or anyone else who might know, to identify the driver on a specified occasion. It usually arrives alongside the Notice of Intended Prosecution, and you normally have 28 days to respond.
This is not optional paperwork. Providing the information is a legal duty, and the clock is real.
The trap: the penalty for silence is bigger
That is the part people miss. They think that by not naming anyone, they make the problem go away. They do the opposite. The speeding might have been 3 points, or even a speed awareness course with no points at all. The failure to respond is a conviction in its own right, with more points, that also sits on your record.
Sure your fine is even criminal?
A request to name the driver means it is criminal. Civil camera fines (bus lane, box junction, ULEZ, parking) work differently, and are often beatable.
What to do instead
The safe path is simple to state. Respond within the deadline. If you were the driver, the form asks you to say so. If someone else was driving and you know who, you provide their details. The point of the section is that the police get a truthful answer, on time.
The harder situation is where you genuinely do not know who was driving, for example a vehicle used by several people. The law does provide a narrow defence here. Under section 172(4), you are not guilty of the failure-to-identify offence if you can show that you did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence have found out, who was driving. But the burden is on you to prove it, it is hard to run, and it is never a reason to ignore the request. Respond, set out honestly what you do and do not know, keep a record of the steps you took to find out, and take advice before the deadline.
The bottom line
The section 172 request is the moment a manageable speeding matter can quietly become something worse. The single most important thing is not to ignore it and not to miss the 28-day deadline. If any of it is unclear, or you cannot identify the driver, that is exactly the point to get proper advice, because this is criminal law and the downside of getting it wrong is real.
One last check. If the letter never actually mentions naming a driver or penalty points, it may not be a criminal matter at all. Many camera fines are civil, not criminal, and those follow completely different, and often more winnable, rules.
Frequently asked questions
What is a section 172 request?
Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 gives the police the power to require the registered keeper of a vehicle, or anyone who may know, to say who was driving on a particular occasion. It normally arrives with the Notice of Intended Prosecution after a camera offence, and you usually have 28 days to respond.
What happens if I do not respond?
Failing to respond is a separate criminal offence in its own right. It usually carries 6 penalty points and a larger fine than the original speeding, and it is generally harder to defend than the speeding would have been. In other words, ignoring the request tends to leave you worse off than the thing it was about.
Can I just say I do not have to name anyone?
No. The duty to provide the information is a legal one. Simply refusing, or ignoring the form, is the offence. If you genuinely cannot identify the driver, the answer is not silence. Respond, set out your position honestly, and take advice on where you stand, rather than letting the deadline pass.
The car is used by several people and I am not sure who was driving. What do I do?
Do not ignore it. Provide what you honestly can, explain the position clearly, and seek advice. There is a narrow statutory defence under section 172(4) if you genuinely did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have found out who was driving, but the burden is on you to prove it, so keep a record of the steps you took. What you must not do is miss the deadline or send nothing, because the failure to respond is itself the offence, separate from the speeding.
Do not let the deadline decide for you.
A section 172 request is criminal. For your own case, take proper advice. And if your camera fine turns out to be civil, that is a different, often more winnable, story.
General legal information about the law in England and Wales, not legal advice, and no solicitor-client relationship is created. Take advice on your own circumstances before acting.