Licence revoked - invalid insurance - accident

DoaM

sevenhills wrote: »

I believe you also should have sent the licence back, to get the points printed on it.

Was that required 6/7 years ago. (Sending in the paper counterpart). Or was the OP expected to send their photo ID licence card as proof of identity? (That's what I had to do the last time I got points, about 3 years ago).

Rover_Driver

DoaM wrote: »

Was that required 6/7 years ago. (Sending in the paper counterpart).

The OP's case was in 2013 when the licence and counterpart were required to be submitted, as it was not, that would be why the licence was revoked. The counterpart was not abolished until 2015.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

Mercdriver wrote: »

You need to do a Statutory Declaration, but you only have 21 days from t he time you found out about the conviction.

Sounds like he may have already done that.

TooManyPoints

Sounds like he may have already done that

I'm not so sure. It's very hard to follow but reading here and on another forum where the problem has been posted, I get the impression that an SD was performed to set aside the original conviction. The OP was under the impression that "that was that" but of course it wasn't. I have a feeling the case was restarted (though not immediately following the SD - that wasn't common practice until fairly recently) and because he could not be contacted (because of the out-of-date address) he was convicted again in his absence.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

TooManyPoints wrote: »

I'm not so sure. It's very hard to follow but reading here and on another forum where the problem has been posted, I get the impression that an SD was performed to set aside the original conviction. The OP was under the impression that "that was that" but of course it wasn't. I have a feeling the case was restarted (though not immediately following the SD - that wasn't common practice until fairly recently) and because he could not be contacted (because of the out-of-date address) he was convicted again in his absence.

So he's allowed it to happen twice for the same offence? If so I've no sympathy for him.

TooManyPoints

So he's allowed it to happen twice for the same offence? If so I've no sympathy for him

As I said, I'm not sure because the full story has not been made clear. Here's what was posted elsewhere (and it would be too coincidental to be somebody else - particularly as the same username has ben used)

"Long story short I didn't receive the letter and failed to identify the driver. This was then escalated to a higher fine and -since I didn’t receive that either- eventually sold to a Debt Recovery Agency. When they got in touch with me on my current address I started making phone calls and found out what happened. I then disputed and went to my Local Magistrates Court where everything was cleared and I was told I don't need to pay any fines nor need to take the driver awareness course (I was only driving 6MPH above the limit on a 40MPH road)."

He also mentions that whilst all this was going on he'd moved twice and, apparently, failed to update his address on both occasions. His assumption that going to the Magistrates' Court (where he presumably made a Statutory Declaration) left "everything cleared" is almost certainly incorrect, hence my suspicion (and it's only that) that he has been convicted for a second time. He has now apparently enlisted the services of a solicitor who, provided the OP provides the full story, should be able to bottom the matter out.

Manxman_in_exile

TooManyPoints wrote: »

I'm not so sure. It's very hard to follow but reading here and on another forum where the problem has been posted, I get the impression that an SD was performed to set aside the original conviction. The OP was under the impression that "that was that" but of course it wasn't. I have a feeling the case was restarted (though not immediately following the SD - that wasn't common practice until fairly recently) and because he could not be contacted (because of the out-of-date address) he was convicted again in his absence.

I think you may be right and explains something I couldn't understand. The OP has posted at least three times on here (not counting pepipoo) something along the lines: "I then disputed and went to the Local Magistrates Court where everything was cleared and I was told I don't need to pay any fines nor need to take the driver awareness course." eg #26.


I understand the SD resets the conviction, but the OP also seems to think that that was the end of it with no mention of a prosecution re-starting for the original underlying offence.

TooManyPoints

I understand the SD resets the conviction, but the OP also seems to think that that was the end of it with no mention of a prosecution re-starting for the original underlying offence.

Yes I strongly suspect that's what's happened.

We're never going to get to the bottom of it on here. Everything seems to have happened in the OP's absence and without his knowledge of either the proceedings or the outcome. That's scarcely surprising when he's moved twice and seemingly told nobody that he has done so. Now he has a solicitor on it he or she may be able to get to the bottom of it.