DURHAM · SELECTED PUBLIC FINDINGS
Durham: 906 reported failure to furnish prosecutions in 2025
Initial notice volumes do not capture every request in a nomination chain. Durham explains how further driver information requirements and reminders arise.
The selected finding
Durham reports 906 failure to furnish prosecutions in 2025. The response labels the measure as prosecutions, not convictions, MS90 endorsements or unique drivers. The exact counting unit and the event used to assign a case to a year are not explained.
An initial notice is not the complete correspondence chain
Durham supplies identical initial NIP and Section 172 figures but expressly describes the Section 172 figure as a minimum. The registered keeper initially receives both. Later nominations can generate further driver information requirements. The two figures must not be added or treated as the full volume of correspondence.
A reminder for each unanswered recipient
The force says a single reminder is issued to each individual involved in a file where no response has been received. Several recipients may be involved in one file. This is a statement of practice, not a reminder count, proof of delivery or a promise about timing. Follow the response instructions on the notice rather than waiting for a reminder.
Historical online access and missing timing data
The response identifies durhamstopspeeding.com as available throughout 2023, 2024 and 2025. It does not specify eligible functions or establish current availability for a particular notice. No requested average or median nomination processing report is held.
The operational question for fleets
Can your team identify every nomination, the person responsible for responding and the evidence that each step was completed? A file marked handled after its initial notice may still require further work. NoticeReady professional research supports review of those procedures. Aggregate force figures do not prove that a particular process prevents prosecution.
Limits that remain open
Complete Section 172 and reminder counts were withheld on retrieval cost grounds, not reported as zero. The response does not specify the camera and officer split or restrict its figures expressly to speeding. Its case-file retrieval population and annual notice totals require reconciliation before combining measures or comparing forces.
Turn source material into a defensible process review.
Discuss a defined research brief covering your operating areas, notice handling workflow and evidence gaps. Full series, field definitions, calculation checks and source correspondence remain in the professional analysis.
Received a notice yourself?
Force statistics cannot decide your case. Identify the document, follow its response instructions and retain evidence.
Source and publication limits
Durham Constabulary FOI 2938849, dated 11 September 2026, pages 2 and 3.
This page publishes selected qualified findings. It does not reproduce the complete series, original correspondence or professional calculations. NoticeReady does not claim exclusive ownership of police facts. Cross-force comparisons require matching coverage and definitions.
Editorial use and corrections
Please credit NoticeReady Research Team and link to this page when citing our analysis. Preserve its qualifications. For corrections or a scoped professional enquiry, contact hello@noticeready.co.uk. NoticeReady is independent of police and courts and is not a law firm.