METROPOLITAN POLICE · SELECTED PUBLIC FINDINGS
Met reports 16,128 alleged Section 172 court referrals in its 2025 column
Court referrals are a distinct procedural measure. They are not convictions, MS90 endorsements or a count of unique drivers. Reporting dates and counting definitions are being clarified.
What the response establishes
The Met labels its Question 4 figures as cases referred to court for alleged failure to provide driver information under Section 172(3). Its 2025 column reports 16,128. This is a force-reported figure, not an independently reconciled court outcome total.
The reporting basis is under clarification
The response repeats its Question 1 NIP figures in a later explanation as camera offences, public allegations and Traffic Offence Reports. That passage labels 2025 “to date”. We have asked the Met to confirm the exact coverage of both tables, the counting unit and how cases are assigned to years. Pending its answer, we are not presenting the 2025 figure as a verified full-calendar-year total or promoting a year-on-year percentage.
What cannot be calculated
The supplied tables do not link each notice to a later referral. They cannot establish the proportion of motorists prosecuted, the chance of an MS90 endorsement or the effect of reminders. Separate Section 172 requirement and reminder counts were excluded on retrieval cost grounds. Those missing counts are not zero.
Online response and timing
The Met says StarPortal was available throughout 2023, 2024 and 2025. Eligible notices and nomination versus admission functions remain under clarification. Follow the instructions on your actual notice. No requested average or median nomination processing report is held.
For fleet and compliance teams
The practical review is whether each driver information request has an owner, a recorded response route and retained submission evidence. NoticeReady professional research helps distinguish what a force confirms from what still needs checking. These aggregate figures do not demonstrate that any particular internal process prevents prosecution.
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
Metropolitan Police Service FOI 01/FOI/26/054577/N, Questions 1, 4, 5 and 6 and the cost explanation.
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.