Driving Licence revoked

[angrypaul]

Poor Kid...if this genuinely is not her fault then I have sympathy but No she should not be driving

 

[Dryce]

As I said on page 2.

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

The problem with the revokation is that it can sit outside this procedure.

If you turn up at court and get banned - you're banned. You can't drive home. Normally if you are facing an offence which would result in a possible ban then you have to turn up at court - even if it's normally something that would involve a fixed penalty notice.

The revokation mechanism for young drivers may not involve an appearance at court as it is a bureacratic procedure. So the process is potentially different - the DVLA notify you. So if you have 3 points and then get awarded another 3 through accepting a FPN then there's *no court* attendance required or asked for - the revokation is handled purely through the DVLA with no court involvement.

So if you accept a FPN or otherwise plead guilty by post as a young driver on probation then you may reach or exceed 6 points without any court involvement.

So this may well mean that technically you can drive until the DVLA issues a notice that your licence is revoked.

 

[brucemillar]

Dryce

I thought we had established? that in this case! The young lady had in fact been to court and had her license revoked by the court. That being the case then the second that the court ruled, she was effectively without a valid license and so therefore should not be on the road.

Her argument (as I understood it) was that she was awaiting some formal notification, over and above the courts ruling, that her license had been revoked and therefore felt entitled to drive until she received such a notice in the post.

The debate now seems to center on whether the revocation becomes effective.

a) In the court. I believe it does.

Or

b) When she receives some formal notice from the DVLA through the post.

Now, given that the she is also claiming not to have received notice through the post stating that her DD had been cancelled, due to "insufficient funds" and that her insurance, had also had been cancelled as a result. I would assume that there is either, an issue with her post or her honesty?

But I am sure (remains to be proved wrong) that the court ruling is when the clock starts. That would remove any such argument over postage etc. Or as Dave pointed out earlier the "old dual license dodge".

In conclusion we need to know all the facts. If we already do then my money is on her being without a valid license since the court ruled.

;^)

 

[Dryce]

I thought we had established? that in this case! The young lady had in fact been to court and had her license revoked by the court.

I thought I had seen a post to the contrary - as in she had not been to court.

My confusion.

 

[brucemillar]

I thought I had seen a post to the contrary - as in she had not been to court.

My confusion.

Dryce

I am reading this as her being in court?

"She was taken to court and received a £300 fine and 6 pts, was forced to renew her insurance to retrieve her impounded car and her licence was revoked due to a new driver collecting 6pts within the first 2 years of driving."

But now I read it again I am troubled by this bit:

"was forced to renew her insurance to retrieve her impounded car "

That, to me suggests that she did indeed believe that she was able to drive "after" the court case?

My understanding (and I do need to be corrected if wrong) is that the clerk to the court, will ask for the license to be presented to the court. The clerk then makes the magistrates aware of any previous conviction, points, etc before sentence is passed. That means that the magistrate is aware of the implications of any penalty. They will then (in the case of the license being revoked or removed) clearly state that "You must not drive, from this point until your license is returned"

I am not clear if that happened here or not?

 

[Dryce]

My understanding (and I do need to be corrected if wrong) is that the clerk to the court, will ask for the license to be presented to the court. The clerk then makes the magistrates aware of any previous conviction, points, etc before sentence is passed. That means that the magistrate is aware of the implications of any penalty. They will then (in the case of the license being revoked or removed) clearly state that "You must not drive, from this point until your license is returned"

Which is what I would have thought.

However - overthinking this - what if the DVLA revokation in this particular circumstance is outside the court's remit?

One of the comments I've seen is that unlike normal points / ban this revokation mechanism sits outside the court's discretion and that it is the DVLA which is responsible. So for example a plea for hardship or special circumstance cannot work in this situation if you are found guilty.

 

[CabrioDave]

Dryce

I am reading this as her being in court?

"She was taken to court and received a £300 fine and 6 pts, was forced to renew her insurance to retrieve her impounded car and her licence was revoked due to a new driver collecting 6pts within the first 2 years of driving."

But now I read it again I am troubled by this bit:

"was forced to renew her insurance to retrieve her impounded car "

That, to me suggests that she did indeed believe that she was able to drive "after" the court case?

My understanding (and I do need to be corrected if wrong) is that the clerk to the court, will ask for the license to be presented to the court. The clerk then makes the magistrates aware of any previous conviction, points, etc before sentence is passed. That means that the magistrate is aware of the implications of any penalty. They will then (in the case of the license being revoked or removed) clearly state that "You must not drive, from this point until your license is returned"

I am not clear if that happened here or not?

Now, Bruce, pay attention!

See the OP's more recent post at "yesterday 09.54 pm" (that is Sunday 22 Jan).
We're now thinking she may not yet have been called to court (whole different ball game).

(Apologies for the sporting metaphor that slipped in there. I was still suffering from the idea of "09.54 pm". There's an 0954 (no dot) and there's a 9.54 pm - and they're twelve hours apart!)

 

[brucemillar]

^
Guilty M'Lud

 

[E55BOF]

Look here:

https://www.licencebureau.co.uk/faqs-for-dvla-policy-change-on-revocation-of-driving-licences/

Courts ban drivers, but they do not revoke licences; only the SoS, through the DVLA, has the power to do that.

 

[Teflonso]

Fast forward another couple of months......

"I'm sorry your honour, I know I was banned but I was waiting for a letter from Wales to confirm that I'm banned and it never came, maybe the postman is a thief, I can't explain, but there it is.

Yes, yes, I know I wasn't insured before and of course, I wasn't insured this time when I wrapped up the car and paralysed a couple of mates. I couldn't afford to maintain the car properly either but I didn't expect the brakes to fail. Perhaps my (previous) insurer will take pity on them and pay the multi-million pound cost for their lifetime care. If not, I could contribute £5 a week toward the bill.

Anyway, any chance of a non-custodial sentence? I'm a good, responsible person at heart, honest I am.
​

.

 

[st13phil]

Look here:

https://www.licencebureau.co.uk/faqs-for-dvla-policy-change-on-revocation-of-driving-licences/

Courts ban drivers, but they do not revoke licences; only the SoS, through the DVLA, has the power to do that.

I did actually provide a link to the relevant legislation in post #23, yesterday, but that hasn't stopped the pontificating.

But then what has the legislation got to do with how the law works when there's an argument to be had on t'interweb?

 

[E55BOF]

I did actually provide a link to the relevant legislation in post #23, yesterday, but that hasn't stopped the pontificating.

Indeed you did, but an awful lot of those in this thread do not seem to have grasped the point, or even read your post...

I can't be bothered any more, either

 

[AMGeed]

OK..........all is revealed and I hold my hands up and say I should have waited to get the proper story instead of the one relayed to me by two family members. How a simple statement can change is beyond me, but there's women for you

The young lady in question didn't know her monthly insurance premium hadn't been paid (she claims) and was surprised to be stopped.

It was the police who gave her a producer and told her she could continue driving until she was summoned to court. She was also told as a new driver her licence would be revoked and the sentence for no insurance was 6pts.

The £300 mentioned was indeed for a fee for releasing and reinsuring the car (monthly again)

As few have mentioned, yes, she was pretty broke, but its still against the law and I don't condone what she did although I feel sorry for her circumstances. Big and expensive lesson learned there. I dread to think what her premium will be when she retakes her test and picks up driving again.

 

[CabrioDave]

Thanks for that, AMGeed (can I call you A?) - we can stop repeating ourselves now!

I was heaving a sigh of relief that none of this new driver stuff applied to me, having got my car licence in 1971, when I realised ...

Apparently, the new process came in in 2009 and it happens that I passed my motorbike test in December 2010. If I was soon caught doing six points worth on the bike ... would, or could, they have revoked a category?

 

[AMGeed]

^No problem Dave. Its nice to see there are differing opinions as to the procedure should this have been dealt first by the courts.

I'm just a bit annoyed I wasn't given the correct info from the outset.

 

[Dave.tam]

I did actually provide a link to the relevant legislation in post #23, yesterday, but that hasn't stopped the pontificating.

But then what has the legislation got to do with how the law works when there's an argument to be had on t'interweb?

The problem with the legislation is that it's open to interpretation. To my knowledge, there are no stated cases to refer to with regard to the time frames relating to the revocation of a licence under the new drivers act 1995.

You, I, or anyone else can interpret the information however we see fit, but until it is challenged in court and a stated case is set, it appears that there is no known time frame between when the points are added and the licence being revoked (which it states happens immediately), and notification being sent/recieved. I can only assume that this happens on the same day, i.e. The court issues the points and at the end of the case the appropriate information is sent to the DVLA for the licence to be revoked with immediate effect. I don't see how or why it wouldn't be done on the same day.

I found a snippet of information that says the DVLA gives 5 days notice of a revocation, so does that mean that a driver can legally drive for 5 days after the date of notice? who knows? but that comes from a driving ban website, and is not confirmed in legislation, where it just says that the SoS will revoke the licence by giving notice, and the revocation takes effect on the date of that notice.

The law is far from black and white. This is why good lawyers get paid stupendous amounts of money to find loopholes, or parts of legislation that are open to interpretation to get their clients off on a technicality.

Anyway, seeing as the young lady hasn't been to court yet and the points haven't been added to her licence, I think we'd all agree that she is perfectly legal to drive for the time being, as long as she's now insured.

Maybe another topic we can speculate on would be if she's now informed whoever is insuring her that she has had insurance cancelled in the past, and also that she has a prosecution pending for driving without insurance!

Not sure if any of that makes sense, but it's gone 1am and I'm knackered

 

[zipdip]

Well of course you should not drive around without insurance,but I think this young girl had better get some legal help at the court,she needs to get the penalty down to 3 pts then at least it is not a complete disaster.

 

[Dave.tam]

This is true, although you can't appeal the revocation if you get 6 points, you can put your case to the judge and request a punishment that doesn't include points, or even only includes up to 5 points, as then the young lady would not have her licence revoked.

The judge has guidelines s/he must adhere to though, and the suggested points applicable for no insurance is between 6-8

 

[brucemillar]

Now I am confused all over again! Not only confused! but starting to realise why the young lady may also be confused, and who could blame her.

To assist my easily confused brain I reached out to my neighbour who is a serving barrister who does get involved in the occasional motoring related case.

Her view? She is confused too.

What she says, she would have "expected" to happen is this.

1) A summons to court.
2) A judgement in court.
3) Judgement would be effective at the time it is issued.

Her other comment: The law does not rely on the vagaries of the postal system and ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If there is any doubt? the young lady has the responsibility to:

a) Contact the court and ask for a copy of her judgement.
b) Contact the DVLA and request a copy of her license.

As Dave Tam points out. Were he to stop this young lady at the wheel? He would simply ask to see her license. He would also double check this with the Police/DVLA computer records. If the computer says "no" then there is the answer. If it says "yes" then there is the other answer.

So the computer will know. We will not.

 

[markjay]

The way I see it is that revoking the license is not part of the judgment / court system.

The judgment was a fine and points. No ban was imposed by the court.

What the DVLA does with the points is an administrative issue for them - revoke the license or not - and that's separate to the court system.

So the question is (as posted previously) at what point does the license become revoked? As soon as the points are acquired, or when the DVLA decides to revoke it?

The fact that this particular case went to court does not seem to be relevant here. And the judge did not tell her to surrender her license.