Can I drive with expired licence?

Lum

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

Who cares though?

Quite a lot of people get upset about the increasing Americanization of our language and culture, a lot more than get upset about simple typos and misspellings.

The "51st state" comment made it quite clear that this was the case here.


And yes the z was deliberate.

bigjl

sarahg1969 wrote: »

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/DG_068315

See part 4. The photo expires after 10 years; driving entitlement does not.

Also see s99 RTA 1988:

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=road+traffic+act+1988&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2276534&ActiveTextDocId=2276689&filesize=40545

If you read my post properly you will see I mention that it is only the photocard that expires, as I have no legal training, unlike my Trusts LEGAL dept I have to follow thier guidance in how to interpret the RTA.

They have interpreted it in such a way that all staff that drive Trust vehicles must renew their licence, happy Hintza:(, or more accurately the photocard before expiry of the photocard.

This isn't something I have made up or my opionion, but rather the opinion of a Lawyer.

What I can't understand is people who comment on such legalities on this forum don't say why their opinion should be considered more relevant than a Lawyer's, they also quote out of context pick up on spelling mistakes with CAPITALS and :mad: Smilies.

And then post links correcting somthing they view as inaccurate but in fact they haven't even read the post correctly.

Tell you what, you do what you want, i will follow the guidance of those more qualified to judge an issue like this.

Keith

The DVLA state you may continue to drive with an expired photocard.

Phone them and you don't even need to speak to an operator.

sarahg1969

bigjl wrote: »

If you read my post properly you will see I mention that it is only the photocard that expires, as I have no legal training, unlike my Trusts LEGAL dept I have to follow thier guidance in how to interpret the RTA.

They have interpreted it in such a way that all staff that drive Trust vehicles must renew their licence, happy Hintza:(, or more accurately the photocard before expiry of the photocard.

This isn't something I have made up or my opionion, but rather the opinion of a Lawyer.

What I can't understand is people who comment on such legalities on this forum don't say why their opinion should be considered more relevant than a Lawyer's, they also quote out of context pick up on spelling mistakes with CAPITALS and :mad: Smilies.

And then post links correcting somthing they view as inaccurate but in fact they haven't even read the post correctly.

Tell you what, you do what you want, i will follow the guidance of those more qualified to judge an issue like this.

I doubt that your Trust's legal department have read the relevant section of the RTA. They are very probably going along with the scaremongering that was in the papers a couple of years ago, and the poor information that's on the DVLA website. And they want to cover their own backs too, just in case. That's perfectly reasonable, if it's their company policy. However, it doesn't mean it is the law.

It's there in black and white in the RTA and on your photocard, too. I can't see how it can be open to interpretation. It's very clear. It can only be the case that the lawyers haven't even read it. Mind you, I guess they don't have much to do with the RTA on a day-to-day basis?

Lum

The job of your lawyers is to minimise the legal risk to your employers, and to an extent the risk to their reputation from the likes of the tabloids, and thus they will err on the side of caution and from time to time they will recommend that the organisation adhere to a higher standard than the law requires.

They don't want an ill informed tabloid headline like, say, "Ambulance driver who killed OAP revealed to have expired driving licence". You can argue all you like that the expiry is irrelevant but it's the headline that will stick and bring the organisation into disrepute.

The guidance from the DVLA and the government is pretty clear, your lawyers are just 4r$e-covering.

bigjl

Lum wrote: »

Quite a lot of people get upset about the increasing Americanization of our language and culture, a lot more than get upset about simple typos and misspellings.

The "51st state" comment made it quite clear that this was the case here.


And yes the z was deliberate.

The entire post also made the poster look like an immature little child.

Americanisation? No actually it was a spelling mistake, some people really need to get a life, the post didn't add anything to the thread.

To post solely to be critical of somebodies spelling is pathetic, end of story, we didn't all study English to Degree level, some of us studied things such as Engineering, also some of us use medical language day in and day out so some of spelling may be wrong due to lack of usage, maybe even use medical abbreviations.

What positive contribution to the thread did that immature post make, none.

bigjl

sarahg1969 wrote: »

I doubt that your Trust's legal department have read the relevant section of the RTA. They are very probably going along with the scaremongering that was in the papers a couple of years ago, and the poor information that's on the DVLA website. And they want to cover their own backs too, just in case.

However, it's there in black and white in the RTA and on your photocard, too. I can't see how it can be open to interpretation. It's very clear. It can only be the case that the lawyers haven't even read it. Mind you, I guess they don't have much to do with the RTA on a day-to-day basis?

Are we talking about your opinion as a Legally trained professional or just a lay persons opinion on how they have interpreted the legal position in this case.

For your photocard licence to be valid you apply for and have both bits, you can't have just the paper bit, you can't have just the photocard, if you lose part of it then you can drive till you get a replacement.


But if part of it has expired then it is no longer valid, why do you think you are sent the pack up to 2 months in advance, to allow you to apply for the new photocard without having a period of time without a valid photocard.

It makes sense to me to compare it to your passport, a passport lasts 10 years, mainly I would assume because the picture would be out of date.

When your passport expires you don't stop being a UK citizen, but you can't travel and you can't use it as a formal ID.

You are still you, but you have no right to travel to another country, hence why most people renew their passport early.

I am not a Lawyer but would assume that the use of 10 years in both cases is not a coincidence, but would anybody on this forum go on a 2 year trip around the world with an expired passport, even if somebody started posting links to laws and statutes?

No, infact they would have problems travelling or getting some visas ith less than 6 months to go on their passport. Eve if they get the visa granted they may get turned back at passport control for the country they are travelling to.

sarahg1969

I am legally trained, yes. However, the RTA and the DVLA explanation are both clear to anyone who cares to read them.

As far as I can see, the following is not open to any other interpretation:

Date of licence issue, photo expiry, issuing authority (4)
The date shown in 4a is the date the photo is valid from. 4b shows either the date the photo expires (driving entitlement is valid until 70th Birthday) or the date entitlement expires (medically restricted and over 70 licences). The authority that issued the licence is shown in 4c ie DVLA.

Your employers' stance is over and above that which is requierd by law, simply to cover themselves, as someone else has said above. Just because your employers add extra terms to your contract of employment does not mean that they are embedded in legislation.

bigjl

Lum wrote: »

The job of your lawyers is to minimise the legal risk to your employers, and to an extent the risk to their reputation from the likes of the tabloids, and thus they will err on the side of caution and from time to time they will recommend that the organisation adhere to a higher standard than the law requires.

They don't want an ill informed tabloid headline like, say, "Ambulance driver who killed OAP revealed to have expired driving licence". You can argue all you like that the expiry is irrelevant but it's the headline that will stick and bring the organisation into disrepute.

The guidance from the DVLA and the government is pretty clear, your lawyers are just 4r$e-covering.

In my opinion it isn't clear, the Interpretation act is clear but the DVLA will still argue that it isn't, if anybody wants to be put in an awkward position by relying on the advice of an unknown poster on an internet forum then go for it.

As far as my Trusts lawyers !!!! covering, well that is obviously true, they are !!!! covering by making sure that there are no licence issues that may cause the Trust to have vicarious liability. It will prevent somebody from inadvertently letting his photocard expire and therefore invalidating the driven vehicles insurance.

The Trust is making sure we are all aware of an issue that may result in it's staff listening to opinion on an Internet forum rather than taking legal advice, so they have sought the legal advice on the staffs behalf and made us aware of the legal opinion regarding this issue.

They aren't doing it to avoid a headline in the Daily Star or a special report on Jeremy Kyle.

Since when is it wrong to take early, prudent precautions.

sarahg1969

You are assuming, bigjl, that the in-house lawyers are au fait with the RTA and have considered it at all. The likelihood is that they have not, and they they just wish to cover themselves, just in case.