A 47-year-old father was left terrified and unable to drive for four months after a devastating police clerical error wrongly identified him as a disqualified driver. Andrew Lees, an IT consultant from Sale, Greater Manchester, was simply driving his wife’s Kia Sportage near his home when police stopped him and arrested him based on incorrect information in official records.

Andrew had already discovered that something was seriously wrong several months before his arrest. In November, he received a letter from the DVLA informing him that he had been disqualified from driving by Carlisle Magistrates’ Court after supposedly receiving 19 penalty points.

The problem was that Andrew had never committed the offences listed against him. The convictions actually belonged to another driver in Greater Manchester, but those offences had somehow been attached to Andrew’s driving licence record.

Certain that the matter was nothing more than an administrative mistake, Andrew tried repeatedly to correct it himself. He contacted the DVLA, Carlisle Magistrates’ Court and the Single Justice Service, sending emails, making phone calls and writing letters in an effort to establish how someone else’s offences had ended up on his record.

Despite going to considerable lengths to resolve the issue, he received no meaningful response and could not even identify the court file responsible for the incorrect record. Because he knew the convictions were not his, Andrew genuinely believed the error would eventually be corrected and that he could continue driving.

Instead, the mistake followed him onto the road.

Three months later, in February, police pulled him over while he was driving. Officers breathalysed him twice before telling him to get into the back of the police van so the matter could be sorted out. Andrew was suddenly arrested and taken into custody.

He was held for 16 hours in a police cell, around eight miles from his home. Andrew said the experience was terrifying because the officers initially refused to accept his explanation that he had never committed the offences recorded against him.

Inside the cold cell, he was overwhelmed by fear and uncertainty. He was worried that he could be sent to prison for an offence he had not committed. With little understanding of what was happening, he struggled to remain strong while privately breaking down.

His only food during the 16-hour ordeal was instant noodles, with Andrew later describing how he was given Pot Noodles for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

After being released on bail and given a court date in June, Andrew faced another devastating consequence: he was effectively unable to drive for four months. The error disrupted almost every part of family life. He could no longer carry out ordinary responsibilities such as taking his daughters, aged nine and five, to school, extracurricular activities or birthday parties.

The family eventually turned to criminal defence specialists Olliers Solicitors for help. Specialist motoring solicitor Austin Anderson-Brettell examined the records and discovered the source of the problem. Offences committed by another defendant had been incorrectly assigned to Andrew’s driving licence number.

Even after the mistake was brought to the attention of the Crown Prosecution Service, the case was not immediately dropped. It continued until representations from Andrew’s legal team finally led to a review.

The CPS eventually discontinued the prosecution just one day before Andrew was due to appear in court.

For Andrew, the news brought enormous relief. After months of uncertainty, he was finally free to drive again. He said he immediately took two days off work and drove to Wales and Scotland, simply enjoying the freedom of being behind the wheel again.

However, the ordeal left serious questions about how such an error could have continued for so long.

Andrew’s solicitor said it was difficult to understand how the case had reached such a stage when the mistake could have been corrected much earlier. He argued that several opportunities existed for the court, police and prosecution to identify the incorrect driving record before Andrew was arrested, detained and forced to spend money on legal representation.

The case has also renewed criticism of the Single Justice Procedure, under which certain minor motoring offences can be dealt with by magistrates behind closed doors without the defendant being present.

Anderson-Brettell warned that the system’s lack of transparency could undermine confidence in the justice process. He also raised concerns that defendants may sometimes be convicted without meaningful engagement, while important circumstances or potential mistakes are not properly examined.

Greater Manchester Police acknowledged that officers had acted in good faith based on incorrect information caused by a clerical error. A spokesman said that once the mistake was identified, the matter was discontinued and the crime was closed.

The CPS explained that the allegation against Andrew was in a category where police could authorise charges without first consulting prosecutors. It was only when a Crown Prosecutor reviewed the case the day before the scheduled hearing that the decision was made to immediately discontinue the prosecution.

Although Andrew was eventually cleared, the consequences of the mistake extended far beyond those 16 hours in custody. His freedom to drive was taken away for months, his family life was disrupted, he endured the fear of possible imprisonment and his family was forced to pay for legal assistance to correct an error they had repeatedly tried to resolve themselves.

Even after the case was dropped, there was another complication: his wife’s car remained impounded by Greater Manchester Police. Police later said the vehicle had been passed back to a third party pending its final release.

For Andrew, what began as someone else’s administrative mistake became months of anxiety, lost freedom and disruption to his family. His experience has highlighted how a simple clerical error in official records can have devastating consequences when the information is treated as fact without being properly checked.