Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2070 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

"It's not unheard of for magistrates to go against this advice and not apply points but it is very rare as they've been instructed that it's not appropriate".

 

 

"Generally, this would be inappropriate since it would circumvent the clear intention of Parliament."

 

Agreed

 

What is the point of strict liability otherwise??

 

You have to apply the law with consistency, even if we do not agree with it

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

But you missed the point. "Generally, this would be inappropriate" and "It's not unheard of for Magistrates to go against this advice" means there is some wiggle room, some times when Magistrates DO go against the advice. That's what the exceptional hardship argument is for.

 

If it was as black and white as you say, then the 2 statements above would be:

"magistrates never go against this advice and always apply points ".

"this is not allowed to happen as it would circumvent the clear intention of Parliament."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exceptional Hardship is a valid reason not to disqualify for a 'totting' disqualification, but may not be considered appropriate in the case of a new driver facing 6 points.

 

 

The difference is that the court will consider the Exceptional Hardship to disqualify or not, but for No Insurance, all they would consider is the penalty - 6 to 8 points or disqualification, or in very very exceptional circumstances - no penalty.

 

 

The advice to magistrates is not to disqualify the offender just to circumvent their licence being revoked under the New Drivers Act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst your stance on this matter is somewhat confusing, I can absolutely gaurentee you that the Magistrates Court will not impose less points simply to avoid having your license revoked. This goes against the aims of the new drivers act and parliamentary intentions, which makes it clear anybody totting up 6 points in the first two years of driving will have their licence revoked.

 

You're simply on a hiding for nothing here, with more costs. You absolutely should have accepted the offer of a fixed penalty, and then immediately reapplied for your provisional license and followed the process through again.

 

Having a solicitor present isn't exactly going to help, the offence was committed, somewhat accidently, however, it was committed and therefore the court's will impose the usual points and a fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not taking a solicitor to court. I'm simply going to do as advised because i can't pay the £300 in full. I will get a chance to give details of the incident and i've spoken to three solicitors over the phone who say while highly unlikely courts do have discretion as to which penalty to impose. They have no discretion but to revoke license if they give the 6 points. I'm not taking a solicitor because i cannot get legal aid for motoring offences. Its all beside the point because I don't have £300 to pay the fixed penalty offer.

 

Thanks for the help guys will let you know what happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...