Contesting Speeding Fine/Revokation of Licence

Deastons

PLPK24 wrote: »

My state of mind comes into it when I feel like the revocation is going to end up taking my job away which I was not able to get to oroginly and therefore Potentially putting me back in a place I don't wana be in again..,

Then I'm afraid you should have valued your licence more and realised how important it was to your job.

My advice is take the punishment and work out how else you can get to work in the meantime (bike, bus, persuade a colleague to give you a lift until you get your licence) and for the next 50yrs, remember this and obey the rules of the road so there's no chance of it happening again.

AdrianC

PLPK24 wrote: »

My state of mind comes into it when I feel like the revocation is going to end up taking my job away which I was not able to get to oroginly and therefore Potentially putting me back in a place I don't wana be in again..,

The revocation is not a ban issued by the court. It's a simple and automatic reaction to 6 points within 24 months of the first test pass. It cannot be argued against.

If the court was to impose a ban, that can be argued against on the grounds of a ban causing exceptional hardship - but that needs to be shown as being exceptional hardship to others. Do other people's jobs rely on you driving? Would other people's lives be adversely affected by you not driving? It is not about you.

Besides, you aren't arguing against a ban. You are arguing FOR one, rather than a revocation. For 90 in a 70, you're above the SAC threshold - so forget that possibility. But you're not above the FPN threshold.


So the normal penalty would be that you would receive an FPN, get three points, DVLA would look at a calendar, and you're back on L-plates.
You would need to turn the FPN down, go to court, and argue in favour of a short ban and no points (minimum for speeding is 3). The ban would likely be a similar length to a realistically possible period for taking your tests again, so there's no real benefit - and it'll cost you a LOT more in fines. You'll also not get a "ban" on your licence, which will be beneficial when it comes to future insurance.

By far and away the simplest, cheapest and most reliable route to get back on the road quickly is to take the FPN, accept the revocation, and work your wotnots off to retake and pass your tests asap.

As far as your health goes, the extended period of poor health was due to you not seeking treatment. You got over that hurdle, and are now receiving treatment which is what's helped you. Work with your GP to manage the fall-out from this, and you should not sink back to those depths. Good luck.

Mercdriver

Deastons wrote: »

I would imagine the fact I wrote that answers your question, but to be clear, yes, I did think this thread needed another lecture. As I mentioned, I enjoy hearing stories of people getting done for speeding, especially when it's their second+ time and it's going to really inconvenience them.



Erm... what?

DM, in the immortal words of Gavin Williamson, our 'great' Defence Secretary, "Shut up and Go Away"

Car_54

AdrianC wrote: »

The revocation is not a ban issued by the court. It's a simple and automatic reaction to 6 points within 24 months of the first test pass. It cannot be argued against.

If the court was to impose a ban, that can be argued against on the grounds of a ban causing exceptional hardship - but that needs to be shown as being exceptional hardship to others. Do other people's jobs rely on you driving? Would other people's lives be adversely affected by you not driving? It is not about you.
.

Just a small point - the exceptional hardship argument is only available in the case of a "totting" ban after 12 points, not in the OP's circumstances.

AdrianC

True, in that it's actually written into the legislation for a totter - but if a court was considering a non-totter ban for a very high speed, then the same arguments may sway them into simply a higher fine.

Deastons

Mercdriver wrote: »

DM, in the immortal words of Gavin Williamson, our 'great' Defence Secretary, "Shut up and Go Away"

What does DM mean?

John-K_3

Deastons wrote: »

I would imagine the fact I wrote that answers your question, but to be clear, yes, I did think this thread needed another lecture.

You are the guy that couldn't understand why cars were not speed limited, yes? The one that did not see a bus lane, and seems to have a propensity for accidents?

Do you not understand that you don't get to lecture anyone once you have made yourself out to be a troll?

Head_The_Ball

Deastons wrote: »

What does DM mean?

Nobody knows.

It is a very Dark Matter.

MEM62

PLPK24 wrote: »

I think a lot of you are missing the point. I'm not blaming my mental Health as to why I was speeding. That's my own fault and I know that. My mental health has nothing to do with why I was driving a certain way.


My state of mind comes into it when I feel like the revocation is going to end up taking my job away which I was not able to get to oroginly and therefore Potentially putting me back in a place I don't wana be in again..,

Whatever state of mind the consequences of loosing your license put you in, you are now in a position where you have to figure out how you are going to deal with it. Maybe they are not too bad as it would appear that the thought of the consequences was not sufficiently bad as to prevent you from loosing your license in the first place.

TooManyPoints

True, in that it's actually written into the legislation for a totter - but if a court was considering a non-totter ban for a very high speed, then the same arguments may sway them into simply a higher fine.

Whilst it does not apply to the OP's circumstances, it needs to be reiterated that that is not correct.

The option to argue "Exceptional Hardship" is only open to those facing a "totting up" ban. Whilst a driver facing an immediate ban for a single offence may make a submission to the court regarding his circumstances it is not an EH argument. To make such an argument the defendant will be asked to provide evidence from the witness box under oath (or affirmation) of the hardship he or others may suffer. To make an informal submission he may simply do so from the dock. If, in those circumstances, the court decides to impose points they should not increase the fine to "make up for" the lack of a ban. The fine should be assessed according to the guidelines and calculated using the defendant's income.There should be no trade-off between the fine and a ban or points.

Lastly, much mention is made here of an Exceptional Hardship argument relying on hardship to others (especially in the event of loss of employment) for success. There is no such formal requirement. There are no rules or precedents set down for EH arguments and each is judged on its overall merits. Whilst it is usually true that loss of employment alone does not make for a successful EH argument there is nothing to say it cannot if the court should be minded to accept it.

But as I said, none of this is relevant to the OP. He would be asking the court to impose a sentence contrary to their guidelines for the sole reason of circumventing the New Drivers' legislation. He is very unlikely to be successful (with or without legal representation) and if I were him I would aceept a Fixed Penalty.