Proposed driving disqual. - Extreme Hardship argument

TooManyPoints

He did ask

Not until long after I'd given my original answer he didn't. And even then it seemed more of an afterthought.

Anyway it doesn't matter. The OP came here for advice not criticism of his actions. This forum exists to provide and receive advice. Those providing criticism serve no purpose other than to simply drive posters away.

Grumpy_chap

TooManyPoints said:

Because I believe (though I might be wrong) that the purpose of his forum is to help people with their motoring problems. 

The OP did not ask for views on how compelling his argument would be.  that’s not what he asked for. He asked for what amounts to advice on procedural issues surrounding it.

Whether you like it or not (and as I’ve made clear, I don’t) they have a way – enshrined in legislation – that enables them to do just that. I happen to have a reasonable amount of knowledge of motoring legislation, police and court procedures.  I’m quite happy to share that knowledge with people who ask for advice. Yes, I’d rather drivers didn’t speed. But many do. 

I think, in this case, comment on procedure and process plus comment on the argument are both parts of the advice around the matter the OP requested, are supportive, and cannot be wholly isolated.

Extreme Hardship does not seem to be precisely defined, so it is down to prior examples that are reported and understanding the issues (hardship) as they affect the OP / others directly.  It does mean that no two cases will necessarily be the same.  

The OP described EH for them as the impact on their Father getting to hospital appointments.  People (including myself) commented that (in lay terms) did not seem to meet the hurdle for EH.  That is, IMO, beneficial to the OP.  They may determine that trying to plead EH is likely to be fruitless and not proceed in that manner.  Alternatively, the OP might add additional information that supports the EH case.  Consider, for example, that the OP's Father is wheelchair bound and needs to carry oxygen bottles and the OP has an adapted vehicle to support this.  The EH case might, then, be stronger than simply "I give Dad a lift to hospital appointments".  Obviously, the OP can only put forward compelling reasons that are truthful and there was no indication that the additional needs I mentioned as a "consider for example" actually apply here.

proformance

TooManyPoints said:

I could be wrong as it doesn't say anything about either option and how they pertain to "Extreme hardship" specifically, but that was my interpretation.

The normal process for somebody who faces a ban is that their case is initially deal with under the "Single Justice" (SJ) procedure (provided the defendant has agreed to that). This is a hearing that the defendant cannot attend. However, if the SJ believes a ban should be considered he will not impose a disqualification. Instead the case will be adjourned (i.e. postponed) to a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court and the defendant invited to attend.

Normally cases where the driver faces a "totting up" ban are removed from the SJ procedure at the outset and go straight to the normal Magistrates' Court. But occasionally they slip through the net. 

It looks like that is what has happened in your case.

It is important to know whether the proposed ban is for "totting up" or for a single offence. The reason for this is that a formal "Exceptional Hardship" (note again: "Exceptional" not "Extreme") argument is not available for single offences; it is only available under the totting up process.

So what's the history of this? What is the offence and how many active points did you have on the date it occurred? Note that points are "active" for totting up purposes for three years from the date of the offence.

It is important that you find out on what basis the ban is proposed because your approach will have to be be completely different, depending on which it is. 

Although it doesn't say it anywhere in the correspondence, the points threshold was breached owing to 6pts for a mobile phone offence (2.5 years ago) + 6pts for driving uninsured (which was the case raised on these forums last year, April(ish)). I suppose that this is considered "totting up" then.

Per your inference that leads you to believe I've been given an SJ (Single Justice) option (attending an in-person hearing), I'm gathering that you're suggesting any plea for avoiding a driving disqual. under the grounds of "Extreme Hardship" is likely made in person.

jimjames

proformance said:

TooManyPoints said:

I could be wrong as it doesn't say anything about either option and how they pertain to "Extreme hardship" specifically, but that was my interpretation.

The normal process for somebody who faces a ban is that their case is initially deal with under the "Single Justice" (SJ) procedure (provided the defendant has agreed to that). This is a hearing that the defendant cannot attend. However, if the SJ believes a ban should be considered he will not impose a disqualification. Instead the case will be adjourned (i.e. postponed) to a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court and the defendant invited to attend.

Normally cases where the driver faces a "totting up" ban are removed from the SJ procedure at the outset and go straight to the normal Magistrates' Court. But occasionally they slip through the net. 

It looks like that is what has happened in your case.

It is important to know whether the proposed ban is for "totting up" or for a single offence. The reason for this is that a formal "Exceptional Hardship" (note again: "Exceptional" not "Extreme") argument is not available for single offences; it is only available under the totting up process.

So what's the history of this? What is the offence and how many active points did you have on the date it occurred? Note that points are "active" for totting up purposes for three years from the date of the offence.

It is important that you find out on what basis the ban is proposed because your approach will have to be be completely different, depending on which it is. 

Per your inference that leads you to believe I've been given an SJ (Single Justice) option (attending an in-person hearing), I'm gathering that you're suggesting any plea for avoiding a driving disqual. under the grounds of "Extreme Hardship" is likely made in person.

You seem to have missed the post earlier that corrected this. If you are making a submission it would be sensible to use the correct terminology

TooManyPoints said:

“…. I wanted to know if the forum thinks/experienced one of the two routes (postal vs in-person) is more successful than the other.”

An Exceptional Hardship (EH) argument  (note: “Exceptional”, not “Extreme”) cannot be made by post.

TooManyPoints

I suppose that this is considered "totting up" then.

Yes.

I'm gathering that you're suggesting any plea for avoiding a driving disqual. under the grounds of "Extreme Hardship" is likely made in person.

It’s not likely made in person. It must be made in person. An “Exceptional Hardship” argument cannot be made by post for the reasons I explained.

I’m not going to try to unpick he chronology of this but I’m guessing you pleaded guilty in response to a “Single Justice Procedure Notice” for the insurance offence and that the court adjourned your case for a hearing in the normal Magistrates’ Court.

The court has done you no favours by giving you the option to respond by post (unless you simply want to accept a six month ban without making representations). I’m surprised they have done so if you face a “totting up” ban, but you are where you are.

When you reach twelve points the court must, by law, disqualify you for a minimum of six months, unless you can prove that you or others will suffer “exceptional hardship”. (Once again, as above, note it is “exceptional” not “extreme”. There is a difference and it’s important when making your argument). So they must give you the opportunity to make that argument.

You need to be in court to do that and you should respond to the letter by saying you do.

LightFlare

Also, to err on the side of caution dont drive to court (unless you have someone with you that can drive you home)

Any ban starts with immediate effect

Okell

proformance said:

TooManyPoints said:

I could be wrong as it doesn't say anything about either option and how they pertain to "Extreme hardship" specifically, but that was my interpretation.

The normal process for somebody who faces a ban is that their case is initially deal with under the "Single Justice" (SJ) procedure (provided the defendant has agreed to that). This is a hearing that the defendant cannot attend. However, if the SJ believes a ban should be considered he will not impose a disqualification. Instead the case will be adjourned (i.e. postponed) to a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court and the defendant invited to attend.

Normally cases where the driver faces a "totting up" ban are removed from the SJ procedure at the outset and go straight to the normal Magistrates' Court. But occasionally they slip through the net. 

It looks like that is what has happened in your case.

It is important to know whether the proposed ban is for "totting up" or for a single offence. The reason for this is that a formal "Exceptional Hardship" (note again: "Exceptional" not "Extreme") argument is not available for single offences; it is only available under the totting up process.

So what's the history of this? What is the offence and how many active points did you have on the date it occurred? Note that points are "active" for totting up purposes for three years from the date of the offence.

It is important that you find out on what basis the ban is proposed because your approach will have to be be completely different, depending on which it is. 

Although it doesn't say it anywhere in the correspondence, the points threshold was breached owing to 6pts for a mobile phone offence (2.5 years ago) + 6pts for driving uninsured (which was the case raised on these forums last year, April(ish)). I suppose that this is considered "totting up" then...

So is this thread simply a continuation from the one last May, or is this thread about an additional traffic offence since then?

(It's a relevant question because if you already made an exceptional hardship plea last year you can't make exactly the same plea again...)

Mildly_Miffed

I'm a little baffled why convictions for driving without insurance and using a hand-held mobile whilst driving would leave one too frightened to drive, except for taking dear ol' dad to the hospital...

They're both very, very easy ones to be sure you're not committing.

proformance

TooManyPoints said:

I suppose that this is considered "totting up" then.

Yes.

I'm gathering that you're suggesting any plea for avoiding a driving disqual. under the grounds of "Extreme Hardship" is likely made in person.

It’s not likely made in person. It must be made in person. An “Exceptional Hardship” argument cannot be made by post for the reasons I explained.

I’m not going to try to unpick he chronology of this but I’m guessing you pleaded guilty in response to a “Single Justice Procedure Notice” for the insurance offence and that the court adjourned your case for a hearing in the normal Magistrates’ Court.

The court has done you no favours by giving you the option to respond by post (unless you simply want to accept a six month ban without making representations). I’m surprised they have done so if you face a “totting up” ban, but you are where you are.

When you reach twelve points the court must, by law, disqualify you for a minimum of six months, unless you can prove that you or others will suffer “exceptional hardship”. (Once again, as above, note it is “exceptional” not “extreme”. There is a difference and it’s important when making your argument). So they must give you the opportunity to make that argument.

You need to be in court to do that and you should respond to the letter by saying you do.

Understood. And yes, noted, "Exceptional", not "Extreme".

LightFlare said:

Also, to err on the side of caution dont drive to court (unless you have someone with you that can drive you home)

Any ban starts with immediate effect

Noted, thanks. 

Okell said:

proformance said:

TooManyPoints said:

I could be wrong as it doesn't say anything about either option and how they pertain to "Extreme hardship" specifically, but that was my interpretation.

The normal process for somebody who faces a ban is that their case is initially deal with under the "Single Justice" (SJ) procedure (provided the defendant has agreed to that). This is a hearing that the defendant cannot attend. However, if the SJ believes a ban should be considered he will not impose a disqualification. Instead the case will be adjourned (i.e. postponed) to a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court and the defendant invited to attend.

Normally cases where the driver faces a "totting up" ban are removed from the SJ procedure at the outset and go straight to the normal Magistrates' Court. But occasionally they slip through the net. 

It looks like that is what has happened in your case.

It is important to know whether the proposed ban is for "totting up" or for a single offence. The reason for this is that a formal "Exceptional Hardship" (note again: "Exceptional" not "Extreme") argument is not available for single offences; it is only available under the totting up process.

So what's the history of this? What is the offence and how many active points did you have on the date it occurred? Note that points are "active" for totting up purposes for three years from the date of the offence.

It is important that you find out on what basis the ban is proposed because your approach will have to be be completely different, depending on which it is. 

Although it doesn't say it anywhere in the correspondence, the points threshold was breached owing to 6pts for a mobile phone offence (2.5 years ago) + 6pts for driving uninsured (which was the case raised on these forums last year, April(ish)). I suppose that this is considered "totting up" then...

So is this thread simply a continuation from the one last May, or is this thread about an additional traffic offence since then?

(It's a relevant question because if you already made an exceptional hardship plea last year you can't make exactly the same plea again...)

It's a continuation. I haven't gone back through that thread, but, if anything around EH was mentioned; it was purely preparatory. It was only in the last coupe of days that I've received the "notice of disqualification" (presumably as the points have now "totted up"). 

The previous thread was about the specific insurance offence, and representation for that. The charge, and penalty were accepted on my part.

This is the contihuation. 

Car_54

Grumpy_chap said:

TooManyPoints said:

Because I believe (though I might be wrong) that the purpose of his forum is to help people with their motoring problems. 

The OP did not ask for views on how compelling his argument would be.  that’s not what he asked for. He asked for what amounts to advice on procedural issues surrounding it.

Whether you like it or not (and as I’ve made clear, I don’t) they have a way – enshrined in legislation – that enables them to do just that. I happen to have a reasonable amount of knowledge of motoring legislation, police and court procedures.  I’m quite happy to share that knowledge with people who ask for advice. Yes, I’d rather drivers didn’t speed. But many do. 

Extreme Hardship does not seem to be precisely defined, so it is down to prior examples that are reported and understanding the issues (hardship) as they affect the OP / others directly.  It does mean that no two cases will necessarily be the same.  

As per previous posts, Extreme Hardship is not defined because it doesn't exist.

The guidelines for Exceptional Hardship, on the other hand, are widely available, and I think were quoted earlier in the thread (TLDR).

Magistrates Court hearings for motoring offences are not generally reported in the media, and only the outcomes are formally recorded. Any reports of previous EH examples generally come from the accused. and so may not be reliable.