(1) With reference to paragraph 3 of her answer to question 1145 on 25 April 2016, how the accused to whom no notices had been mailed despite the fact that notices were indeed generated in the system and remained there, will ever be in a position to make representation regarding the cancellation of such notices that were never received; (2) whether the system does not of its own accord cancel the notices in the system after 40 days; (3) whether it militates against the principle of legitimacy to keep the irregular notices in the system and then to issue them later when the situation arises; (4) why must accused persons react to such irregular notices if it is the issuing authority and/or the Road Traffic Infringement Agency that is at fault?