Proposed driving disqual. - Extreme Hardship argument

HillStreetBlues

Car_54 said:

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.

It would the guilty, it's the punishment they are trying to avoid.

Okell

proformance said:

... 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. 

You haven't really made it any clearer...

On 31 May last year you told us this:

"... I'm wondering if the forum can help advise what happens in the scenario where:

1) Existing 6 pts (phone) - due to expire July 2025
2) Impending 6 pts (insurance) - due to register Jun 2024 ..."

( 6 pts + 6 pts = Ban - Details... — MoneySavingExpert Forum )

You are now telling us that "The [insurance] charge and penalty were accepted on [your] part", but you haven't explained what you "accepting" the charge and penalty means.  Do you mean that you pleaded guilty in June last year and got 6 points then for the insurance offence, or are you trying to say that the insurance charge is only being dealt with now, and that that is what this current thread is about?

Do you currently have only 6 points (for the phone offence) or do you have more?

proformance

Okell said:

proformance said:

... 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. 

You haven't really made it any clearer...

On 31 May last year you told us this:

"... I'm wondering if the forum can help advise what happens in the scenario where:

1) Existing 6 pts (phone) - due to expire July 2025
2) Impending 6 pts (insurance) - due to register Jun 2024 ..."

( 6 pts + 6 pts = Ban - Details... — MoneySavingExpert Forum )

You are now telling us that "The [insurance] charge and penalty were accepted on [your] part", but you haven't explained what you "accepting" the charge and penalty means.  Do you mean that you pleaded guilty in June last year and got 6 points then for the insurance offence, or are you trying to say that the insurance charge is only being dealt with now, and that that is what this current thread is about?

Do you currently have only 6 points (for the phone offence) or do you have more?

Yes, I pleaded guilty to the no-insurance charge. Thus landing on 12pts. It is only now that the "totting up" has been processed and the ensuing letter of proceedings issued to me.

TooManyPoints

Yes, I pleaded guilty to the no-insurance charge. Thus landing on 12pts. It is only now that the "totting up" has been processed and the ensuing letter of proceedings issued to me.

This is something I do not understand.

Totting up does not get "processed".

When a court imposes points which take the driver to twelve or more, they must, by law, disqualify him there and then (unless he presents a successful "exceptional hardship" argument - there and then).. That is why you should have expected to have been called to court when your no insurance matter was first heard. A court will not disqualify you in your absence without first giving you the opportunity to attend.

If you pleaded guilty last June to that offence I do not understand why it has taken until now to call you to court. Whilst many courts have backlogs for trials, few have any significant backlogs for dealing with guilty pleas - certainly not to the tune of over six months.

It doesn't really matter because the letter you have is quite clear. It's just very puzzling.

proformance

TooManyPoints said:

Yes, I pleaded guilty to the no-insurance charge. Thus landing on 12pts. It is only now that the "totting up" has been processed and the ensuing letter of proceedings issued to me.

This is something I do not understand.

Totting up does not get "processed".

When a court imposes points which take the driver to twelve or more, they must, by law, disqualify him there and then (unless he presents a successful "exceptional hardship" argument - there and then).. That is why you should have expected to have been called to court when your no insurance matter was first heard. A court will not disqualify you in your absence without first giving you the opportunity to attend.

If you pleaded guilty last June to that offence I do not understand why it has taken until now to call you to court. Whilst many courts have backlogs for trials, few have any significant backlogs for dealing with guilty pleas - certainly not to the tune of over six months.

It doesn't really matter because the letter you have is quite clear. It's just very puzzling.

Yeah, it is annoying for me too, because I've not had a car in that time, as I've been waiting for this impending disqual. If choose to make an EH case, and am unsuccessful in doing so, I'd have "wasted" 6 months.

But that is the way things have panned..

Freecall

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.

I am not sure whether the OP understands that it is not a question of simply convincing the Bench that they will suffer exceptional hardship.

They will need to give evidence of that hardship under oath and will get cross-examined on that evidence by a professional prosecutor.

This is not just a question of standing in the dock and asking the Bench to go easy, this will be from the witness box with all that implies.
 

Okell

proformance said:

TooManyPoints said:

Yes, I pleaded guilty to the no-insurance charge. Thus landing on 12pts. It is only now that the "totting up" has been processed and the ensuing letter of proceedings issued to me.

This is something I do not understand.

Totting up does not get "processed".

When a court imposes points which take the driver to twelve or more, they must, by law, disqualify him there and then (unless he presents a successful "exceptional hardship" argument - there and then).. That is why you should have expected to have been called to court when your no insurance matter was first heard. A court will not disqualify you in your absence without first giving you the opportunity to attend.

If you pleaded guilty last June to that offence I do not understand why it has taken until now to call you to court. Whilst many courts have backlogs for trials, few have any significant backlogs for dealing with guilty pleas - certainly not to the tune of over six months.

It doesn't really matter because the letter you have is quite clear. It's just very puzzling.

Yeah, it is annoying for me too, because I've not had a car in that time, as I've been waiting for this impending disqual. If choose to make an EH case, and am unsuccessful in doing so, I'd have "wasted" 6 months.

But that is the way things have panned..

I'm sorry but you really don't make it easy to understand what you are going on about.

What do you mean by "... because I've not had a car in that time, as I've been waiting for this impending disqual. If choose to make an EH case, and am unsuccessful in doing so, I'd have "wasted" 6 months"?

Do you literally mean that you haven't had a car since last June, or have you simply chosen not to drive, and why would you have "wasted" 6 months?

Are you saying that you have not used your car for 6 months because you have been waiting to be disqualified, so that if you get disqualified now your self-imposed "ban" will have been for nothing?

Are you sure you weren't disqualified last June?

Grumpy_chap

proformance said:

Yeah, it is annoying for me too, because I've not had a car in that time, as I've been waiting for this impending disqual. If choose to make an EH case, and am unsuccessful in doing so, I'd have "wasted" 6 months.

But that is the way things have panned..

I think that note wholly undermines the proposed EH claim that you were intending to rely on to avoid a ban.

proformance said:

I will be preparing an Extreme Hardship (EH) case as I need to shepherd my father between various hospital and medical appointments, for ailments and conditions that are well-documented

Which of the many alternative means of transport that might be available (Hospital transport, public transport, Council / charity transport, taxi, UBER, etc.) has your Father used to get to hospital appointments in the past 6 months while you've had no car?

OR, has your Father not had any appointments to attend in the past 6 months?  If the frequency of appointment is less frequent, that would also seem to undermine the associated EH claim, as arranging a small number of taxi trips in a year is far easier and cheaper than the impact if there were many.

boobyd

Have you checked your Driving Licence?

Okell

@proformance -  what was the date of the notice of proposed disqualification that you refer to in your OP, and what was the date of the SJP (or charge) for the insurance offence in your original thread?