You were not driving? Here is how to identify the driver

A speed camera photo taken from behind, a letter with a request for information, and you are certain you were not behind the wheel at that moment. Perhaps it was your partner, a child, a colleague or a friend you had lent the car to. What should you do?

The answer is stricter than many people think. Since the Act of 6 March 2018, it is no longer enough to say that it was not you. In principle, you must also state who was driving. Anyone who refuses risks prosecution for a separate offence. For companies, strict rules have applied for even longer. This article complements our guide to hit and run, where identifying the driver is often at the heart of the case.

The presumption against the number plate holder

Many traffic offences are recorded without the driver being stopped: speed cameras, average speed checks, red-light cameras, but also hit and run cases where only the number plate was noted. For these cases, Article 67bis of the Road Traffic Act provides that the offence is presumed to have been committed by the holder of the number plate, meaning the person in whose name the vehicle is registered.

In a judgment of 21 June 2022 (P.22.0071.N), the Court of Cassation confirmed that this presumption applies to all offences under the Road Traffic Act. It therefore covers not only speeding, but also, for example, alcohol-related offences. The presumption also applies when the police find several people near the vehicle without knowing who was driving. The public prosecutor (ministère public) must, however, always prove the offence itself.

How do you rebut the presumption?

Step 1: prove that you were not the driver

You can rebut the presumption by any legal means. A few examples:

• at the time of the events, you were abroad, as shown by plane tickets or a hotel invoice;
• you were at work, as shown by a clocking record or a statement from your employer;
• the police report (procès-verbal) itself mentions details that do not match you, for example the sex or age of the driver visible in the photo.

Step 2: give the identity of the actual driver

Before 2018, that was the end of it. It was enough to say “it wasn’t me”, and the public prosecutor’s office (parquet) had to find out for itself who was driving. In practice, many offences went unpunished as a result, including hit and run cases with victims.

Since the Act of 6 March 2018, Article 67bis provides that a number plate holder who proves they were not driving is required to give the identity of the actual driver. You must therefore name someone, and do so credibly.

Since a legislative amendment of 23 September 2018, a period of 15 days applies. It runs from the day on which you are able to prove that you were not the driver.

What if you genuinely do not know who the driver was?

The law provides for three exceptions. You do not have to name anyone if you can prove that there was:

• theft of the vehicle or the number plate;
• fraud, for example when someone drives with a forged or cloned plate;
• force majeure, for example when a stay in hospital prevented you from responding.

Outside these cases, “I don’t know who was driving” is not a valid answer. The legislature expects you to know who you entrust your car to.

When and how should you respond?

After an offence has been recorded, you receive a request for information or a reply form from the police or the public prosecutor’s office, often via the amendesroutieres.be platform. On it, you state that you were not the driver and who was driving: name, address, date of birth and driving licence number if you know it.

A few practical points:

• Respond straight away and within the deadline. For individuals too, Article 67bis imposes a 15-day period, running from the day on which you can prove you were not driving. So do not wait until you receive a summons (citation). Someone who names another driver for the first time months later, at the hearing, will find it much harder to convince the judge. The case law often sees this as a lack of credibility.
• Evidence does not have to be attached straight away. On the form, you must state that you were not driving and who was. The documents proving this can still be submitted to the judge later.
• Make your version plausible. If you name a driver who lives abroad or whose profile seems unlikely, provide a statement signed by that person with a copy of their identity card, as well as proof that they were in Belgium at the time.
• Never falsely name someone. Anyone who names another person when they were in fact driving themselves risks prosecution for forgery, and can still be prosecuted for the offence itself as well.

Companies and other legal entities

If the vehicle is registered in the name of a company or an association, Article 67ter applies. The legal entity, or the person who legally represents it, must give the identity of the driver at the time of the events within 15 days of the request for information being sent. If the company does not know the driver, it must name the person responsible for the vehicle. That person must in turn give the identity of the driver.

The law also requires the legal entity to take the necessary measures to be able to comply with this obligation. A company with several cars or shared vehicles therefore has every interest in keeping a logbook. Letters left lying around at the registered office are a classic trap: the 15-day period runs from the date the letter is sent, not from the moment someone opens it.

Here too, the exceptions for theft, fraud and force majeure apply.

The Court of Cassation has clarified these rules on several points:

• The public prosecutor must make receipt plausible. Merely proving that the letter was sent is not enough. It must be reasonably established that the company actually received the request, or that it did not receive it through its own negligence. The company must also genuinely be able to rebut this presumption (Cass. 14 December 2021, P.21.1108.N).
• An oral request is also valid. The request for information does not have to be in writing. It can, for example, be put during an interview (Cass. 14 December 2021, P.21.0801.N).
• You must be able to answer even a late request. The company must organise itself so that it knows, even long after the events, who was driving which car (Cass. 9 November 2021, P.21.0894.N).
• Taking the blame yourself is not an option. A company or its manager cannot escape the obligation to identify the driver by taking responsibility for the offence themselves. The Court ruled this in a recent judgment.

If you use a company car provided by your employer, you will find more explanation in our article on fines with a company car.

The regular driver

A rental or leasing company can have a regular driver (conducteur habituel) registered in the Vehicle Crossroads Bank (Banque-Carrefour des Véhicules). That driver is then treated as the number plate holder, so that the request for information goes directly to them. At present, this registration is not open to all companies. A 2026 bill aims to extend it to all legal entities that have a vehicle fleet.

What do you risk if you do not identify the driver?

Anyone who does not give the identity of the driver is prosecuted for a separate offence, independent of the original offence. Since 1 September 2026, penalties are expressed according to the penalty levels of the new Criminal Code (Code pénal).

Who	Obligation	Penalty for non-compliance
Individual (Article 67bis)	Give the identity of the actual driver if you prove you were not driving	Level 2 penalty; for a repeat offence within three years, a level 3 penalty can be imposed
Legal entity (Article 67ter)	Give the identity of the driver within 15 days	Level 1 penalty; for a repeat offence within three years, the fine is doubled

Does this obligation breach your right to silence, the right not to incriminate yourself? No, the Court of Cassation has ruled. The obligation to disclose who was driving the car does not undermine the essence of that right (Cass. 6 February 2018, P.17.0577.N).

The judge retains a wide margin of discretion. The judge looks in particular at whether there was intent or negligence, and at the seriousness of the underlying offence. Someone who refuses to name the driver after a hit and run with an injured person will be treated more severely than someone who left a letter about minor speeding lying around.

The competent court is the police court (tribunal de police) of the place where the original offence was committed.

Frequently asked questions

Have your case reviewed

Have you received a request for information or a summons for an offence you did not commit yourself? We help you rebut the presumption correctly and prepare your defence. Contact us. Also read our article on the limitation period for traffic offences.

Law as at 30 September 2026. We update this article when the rules change.