Driving Licence revoked

[shane63]

I have just spoken to a friend of mine who is a traffic police officer. The ban on her driving comes into immediate effect when sentence is pronounced in the court. When the sentence is announced the clerk will state that she will not be allowed to drive with immediate effect.
I think that is a pretty definite answer, under no circumstances should she drive, even if she has not received notification from DVLA. She received the notification at her court hearing. She may not have taken it in because of what was going on around her and the pressure of the circumstances, but her licence was revoked at the time of accouncement of sentence at the court.

 

[CabrioDave]

I'll ask at work tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure that the driver is banned instantly at court. I know it's semantics re banned/disqualified/revoked etc, but the jist of it is, you're sent to court as the total points for the offence would meet the totting up rule, so you can't just get a ticket. Then the court issues the penaulty, which for no insurance is normally a fine of £300 (used to be £200) and 6 penalty points on the licence, which if given to a driver with less than 2yrs experience, gets them an automatic and immediate ban. She would have been perfectly legal to drive to the court (if now insured), but would be reminded by the court that she cannot and must not drive home.

Well, what does "it's semantics" mean? (A question both deeply philosophical and shallowly ironic )

Is the DVLA a court? Is a licence a person? These are relevant, because:
a court disqualifies a person, and
the DVLA revokes a licence.

The difference is about process. And process affects what happens later, too. When a licence is revoked, the driver is put back in the position as if they'd never had a licence. They are NOT disqualified from driving: they may legally drive again as soon as they've successfully gone through the testing process again - just like anyone else that doesn't have a licence.

When a person is disqualified from driving, it lasts for a set time - let's say a year. After the year, the person still has their licence (it wasn't revoked), and is now allowed to use it again.

In the original posting, the driver acknowledged that (at some point) she wouldn't be allowed to drive - but claimed that that time hadn't yet come, as she hadn't been notified. We can be clear that she needs to be notified*, but the OP is wondering whether she's "pretending".

*As st13phil said, the relevant law is the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 and in there it's very clear (to me) that when the new driver is convicted, such that the points go to six or more, "the court must send to the Secretary of State a [notice]" and that "Where the Secretary of State receives [the notice] the Secretary of State must by notice served on that person revoke the licence".

(Sections 2(2) and 3(1) in the Act.)

The role of Secretary of State, in this production, is of course taken by the DVLA. So ... did they serve the notice yet? (Check the driving licence website as above.)

There's also in the Act the implication that the licence would be surrendered to the court (who then send it to the Sec of State). If the court took the licence, I think it's fairly clear she shouldn't be driving.

So ... does she still even have the physical licence? What does the linked website say about the state of that licence?

 

[Dave.tam]

I tried explaining it as best I could, I can't really explain it any more.

I'm no lawyer, I'm trying to be as helpful as I can.

You can be banned and you licence is automatically reinstated at the end of you ban, or you can be banned for the length of your ban, and then until test passed. So it's not as simple as "revoke/ban/disqualify" etc

I'm trying to simplify things, not make them more complicated. If she was given 6 points at court, she would not be able to drive away from the court.

HTH

 

[CabrioDave]

If she was given 6 points at court, she would not be able to drive away from the court.

That seems highly likely. The court wouldn't "revoke" the licence at that point (it's the DVLA who does that, later), but I'm assuming it would cause the driver to surrender the licence to the court (and explain not to drive).

But ... we're suspecting a non-too-clear-thinking young driver here!

If she didn't surrender the licence (”I've lost it your honour") and knows about the required notice from the DVLA, she may well think she has a licence.

Note that (as I see it) what I quoted from the Act requires the DVLA to issue the notice. It doesn't say she can drive until then ...

 

[E55BOF]

It seems quite straightforward to me. As Convertible Dave (none of this foreign nonsense 'ere...) quotes, "the court must send to the Secretary of State a [notice]"..."Where the Secretary of State receives [the notice] the Secretary of State must by notice served on that person revoke the licence".

If that is accurate, it follows that, legally, the licence is not revoked until the SoS serves the notice. However...

If the procedure is the same as in my area of Civil Service and legal process expertise, a notice is deemed to have been served when it is posted, not when it is received. If it is (genuinely - not that anyone would tell fibs...) not received, it matters not; it has, legally, been served.

 

[Dave.tam]

Being in physical possession of your driving licence doesn't mean you have a right or entitlement to drive.

People try to get over on the system all the time. When someone expects a ban, they apply to the dvla for a new licence as they've lost the current one. Dvla sends them out a duplicate licence and now they're in possession of 2 driving licences in their name. They go to court, get banned and surrender their licence.

They continue to drive, get stopped by the police and produce a driving licence. Of course, they are not permitted to drive, even though in possession of a driving licence.

The same happens with insurance certificates, as discussed in this thread.

If I stopped the female in question driving her car, I check the status of her licence on the police national computer, it says she's been banned/revoked/disqualified etc and the date of that ban is the date she was at court. (it doesn't matter to me at the time which one it is). If she tells me that she's still entitled to drive as the dvla hasn't informed her of her ban/revocation etc, that has no bearing on me at the roadside. She shouldn't be driving and would be dealt with as such.

 

[E55BOF]

Legally, if the notice hasn't been served, the licence hasn't been revoked. The date of revocation will be the date of service of the notice, though, not the date of the court hearing, unless the notice was served on the same day.

It's probably academic; I'm pretty sure the licence wouldn't be shown on the database as revoked until the notice had been served.

Go get 'er, tiger...

 

[AMGeed]

I shall find out tomorrow what the position is. As I said, there is more to this than I have been told, especially as (Megan) is adamant she has been told she can drive until notified. I swear the story has changed from what actually occurred.

Now, what I think has happened.
She was stopped and the traffic police check revealed her insurance was invalid. Her car was impounded and she was told by the police that her licence would be revoked when it came to going to court for no insurance.
In the meantime she could continue driving if she produced a valid insurance and paid for her car to be released. This what cost her £300.
I'll find out whether my guess is right very soon.

Again, appreciate the comments and it does show there is room for question given some of the different replies.

 

[ash59fifty-uk]

It's immediate from the time at court, it's happened to me under different circumstances. The only thing she needs to worry about now is sending her license to the DVLA and putting the car on SORN or give to a friend/family member to drive legally

 

[CabrioDave]

Ooh, 'ang on, the story's shifted a bit!

So, now she's saying she's been caught for the no insurance, but hadn't tet been called to court. The £300 wasn't a fine, but was the retrieval cost of the car?

In that case, she hasn't yet got six points.

Still worth checking the licence via website, so see which (if any) story is true.

 

[AMGeed]

Ooh, 'ang on, the story's shifted a bit!

So, now she's saying she's been caught for the no insurance, but hadn't tet been called to court. The £300 wasn't a fine, but was the retrieval cost of the car?

In that case, she hasn't yet got six points.

Still worth checking the licence via website, so see which (if any) story is true.

No Dave......that is what I am guessing as she says she is still allowed to drive.

 

[Dave.tam]

If this was correct, then she would still be able to drive until she attended court, as the penalty would not have been imposed at this time.

I'll tell you what, I'll settle this once and for all. Give me her details and I'll tell you if she has a licence!

I feel I need to point out that I'm joking!

 

[AMGeed]

If this was correct, then she would still be able to drive until she attended court, as the penalty would not have been imposed at this time.

I'll tell you what, I'll settle this once and for all. Give me her details and I'll tell you if she has a licence!

I feel I need to point out that I'm joking!

All I'll tell you is she is single, aged 25 and about a 34 24 34 and her name is Megan

As I say, I'm only guessing ,but I feel its the most likely scenario if she was told she can continue driving for the time being

 

[Dave.tam]

All I'll tell you is she is single, aged 25 and about a 34 24 34 and her name is Megan

Sounds like she's got a licence to me! :bannana:

As I say, I'm only guessing ,but I feel its the most likely scenario if she was told she can continue driving for the time being

Yeah, that's exactly what I'd tell someone, they can continue driving (as long as she re insured her car of course) until she attends court at which point any penalty/punishment is dealt by the courts. Of course we have to say this to drink drivers too, as they aren't banned until the courts say they are.

I've never quite understood why some people get a straight ban, and others get the same ban, but also need to retest before they get their licence back

 

[CabrioDave]

I'm only guessing ,but I feel its the most likely scenario if she was told she can continue driving for the time being

Makes sense.

But we're all fascinated now, so do let us know how thing turn out!

 

[E55BOF]

It's immediate from the time at court

If the quote is correct, in the specific circumstances given the licence can only be revoked by the DVLA. The court can of course ban a driver, which is indeed immediate, but not revoke a licence.

I presume that if/when her licence is revoked she can immediately apply for a provisional licence, and once she has that, continue driving legally, but only with L plates and meeting the other requirements for learner drivers.

Yes, do let us know how it turns out.

 

[markjay]

.... she was told she can continue driving for the time being...

Told by who?

 

[219]

If this hasn't yet been sent to court , what is absolutely crucial for Megan to find out is whether she was notified by her insurer ( or that they at least attempted to notify her ) that they were about to cancel her insurance ; every insurance policy I have seen states that this notice MUST be given , otherwise a person could be driving around not aware that they are uninsured , and if the insurer cannot show that this notice was given , or at least attempted , then the cancellation is unlawful and the insured must be found not guilty of the charge .

As stated earlier , though , Megan's bank should also have sent notice of a declined DD , and if this was given it would have been incumbent on her to check the status of her insurance .

I once found myself to have been driving uninsured through no fault of my own ! A 'friend' had started working as an agent for a legitimate insurance company ( this about 40 years ago before internet etc ) and we met in a pub where I paid the quoted year's premium and was given an official receipt and cover note . At the time I was young and a little naive in such matters , so when it went slightly beyond the 30 day cover note period and I still hadn't received the documents , I didn't worry - after all I had a receipt for the premium I had paid , as well as the now expired cover note . However , shortly after that I received a phone call at work from this chap Jim's father ( fortunately he knew me and where I worked ) , informing me that he had disappeared and , on going through his room the father had found a number of crumpled up cover notes and paperwork for which Jim had taken cash payments without putting the papers through and therefore not to drive as I was most likely uninsured ! Oh dear , said I , as I had the car at work . I immediately phoned the insurance company explaining , and was put through to a manager , who told me that mine was one of several similar cases . I was told that under the circumstances that I was insured ( after giving some details over the phone , and to come in asap with what paperwork I had . I was sorted out with a cracking deal by way of apology and given a full year's cover from the date I went in , but worrying all the same that I had driven around for six weeks or so without insurance .

 

[ash59fifty-uk]

One thing I don't think has been mentioned was are we sure she was paying by DD? Or had the premium been paid in full at the beginning

Edit- just read the first post again and it's a direct debit

 

[brucemillar]

As I said on page 2.

She was driving illegally the second "after" the courts issued the ban (revoked). No letter is required.