Pleading guilty by post - Motor offence

Scrootum

I would just be grateful he didn't crash into or injure anyone.

FlameCloud

With luck they will get banned. I hope it is inconvenient- it's supposed to be a punishment.

Rolandtheroadie

Guest101 wrote: »

Vehicle emissions duty*

Whats that?

AdrianC

scotsman4th wrote: »

Whats that?

It's a bit like Vehicle Excise Duty...

There's one detail which nobody's yet mentioned - for those on a provisional licence or within two years of their first test pass, they get banned at six points, not twelve.

Since six is the minimum for the insurance, then another three for the licence, they are certain to get at least nine points. I'd expect that the court would not look lightly on somebody claiming they'd experience "exceptional hardship" from losing the privilege to drive which they haven't actually got yet.

The elderly, ill father is a red herring. He might have a licence, but I presume he's being driven because he's not in a position to drive himself? If that's the case, then he's not in a position to supervise a learner, since they have to be able to take over the car if required.

His own medical conditions are also a red herring. If DVLA have agreed that they do not affect his ability to drive, then there's got to be an implicit acceptance that that includes the ability to comprehend the responsibilities of a driver. DVLA _are_ aware of the conditions, right? Because if they aren't, it could be an even bigger mistake to rely on them in court - especially if you're attempting to use them to justify him keeping the privilege to drive which he doesn't even have yet.

IMHO, a ban is a cert. And if he's struggling to get his head around not driving without a full licence, he'd better get his head around not driving whilst banned - because that can attract jail time.

Rover_Driver

AdrianC wrote: »

It's a bit like Vehicle Excise Duty...

There's one detail which nobody's yet mentioned - for those on a provisional licence or within two years of their first test pass, they get banned at six points, not twelve.

Since six is the minimum for the insurance, then another three for the licence, they are certain to get at least nine points.

The New Drivers Act doesn't apply to provisional licence holders - until they pass their test, then any additional points that takes them over six within two years will result in DVLA revoking their licence - they are not banned.


As the offences were at the same time, the total points awarded will only be the points for the most serious offence (in these type cases, usually 6 for no insurance) - s.28(4), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Captain_Flack.

AdrianC wrote: »

It's a bit like Vehicle Excise Duty...

There's one detail which nobody's yet mentioned - for those on a provisional licence or within two years of their first test pass, they get banned at six points, not twelve.

Since six is the minimum for the insurance, then another three for the licence, they are certain to get at least nine points. I'd expect that the court would not look lightly on somebody claiming they'd experience "exceptional hardship" from losing the privilege to drive which they haven't actually got yet.

The elderly, ill father is a red herring. He might have a licence, but I presume he's being driven because he's not in a position to drive himself? If that's the case, then he's not in a position to supervise a learner, since they have to be able to take over the car if required.

His own medical conditions are also a red herring. If DVLA have agreed that they do not affect his ability to drive, then there's got to be an implicit acceptance that that includes the ability to comprehend the responsibilities of a driver. DVLA _are_ aware of the conditions, right? Because if they aren't, it could be an even bigger mistake to rely on them in court - especially if you're attempting to use them to justify him keeping the privilege to drive which he doesn't even have yet.

IMHO, a ban is a cert. And if he's struggling to get his head around not driving without a full licence, he'd better get his head around not driving whilst banned - because that can attract jail time.

Why do you say that?

Stooby2

Captain_Flack. wrote: »

There is no time limit on holding or driving on a provisional and there will be no evidence put before the court that they have driven otherwise that in accordance before.

Please, in order to help the OP check your facts before posting.:D

Perhaps I was thinking outside the box too much, but we don't know what the OP's mate said to the police officer and what was recorded. If his mate did mention he'd been driving for nine years without bothering to take a test, that could be mentioned, hence why I said "if there's evidence".

The next time I'm in court I'll ask the clerk what the reality is re points. I know I've seen drivers who have committed numerous offences (on the same day) get totted and banned there and then. Be interesting to find out.

Captain_Flack.

Stooby2 wrote: »

Perhaps I was thinking outside the box too much, but we don't know what the OP's mate said to the police officer and what was recorded. If his mate did mention he'd been driving for nine years without bothering to take a test, that could be mentioned, hence why I said "if there's evidence".

The next time I'm in court I'll ask the clerk what the reality is re points. I know I've seen drivers who have committed numerous offences (on the same day) get totted and banned there and then. Be interesting to find out.

He has no points to tot up and will only receive 8 at most. Why not read what Rover Driver posted?

It's obvious he has driven for 9 years without passing a test, so what? That's not an offence so stop scaremongering.

Aretnap

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The actual wording of s.28(4) Road Traffic Offenders Act is that the number of points awarded is the highest number applicable for any of the offences involved.

But see s28(5) - they can decide that 28(4) should not apply if they see fit. If they do, they should state their reasons in open court. So you only get the points for the most serious offence, unless the magistrates think you should get points for all of them. In practice the former is the norm in most courts.

There is an apocryphal story about a serial joyrider who broke the DVLA's computer when the magistrates decided to make an example of him by awarding points for each and every offence he had been convicted of. Unfortunately the system only allowed for a maximum of 99 points, and he was sent back a clean licence. One of those "if it's not true, it should be" stories.

Captain_Flack.

Aretnap wrote: »

But see s28(5) - they can decide that 28(4) should not apply if they see fit. If they do, they should state their reasons in open court. So you only get the points for the most serious offence, unless the magistrates think you should get points for all of them. In practice the former is the norm in most courts.

There is an apocryphal story about a serial joyrider who broke the DVLA's computer when the magistrates decided to make an example of him by awarding points for each and every offence he had been convicted of. Unfortunately the system only allowed for a maximum of 99 points, and he was sent back a clean licence. One of those "if it's not true, it should be" stories.

How did that make an example of him?

If he had a full licence 12 would see him banned on a totter and they usually disqualify joy riders any way.