Motoring Law Blog

It has been estimated that over 2 million drivers are unwittingly driving their motor vehicles without realising that their driving licences are out of date and have expired !!

This could land you with a fine of up to £1,000, and penalty points on your driving licence.

Driving Licence Expired?

For those limited number of drivers who still use the old fashioned “all-paper licences”, which have now ceased to be issued, these are usually valid until the driver’s 70th birthday as long as their personal details are correct.

However, confusion has arisen in relation to the new “photo-card driving licences”, which were first issued in 1998. Drivers believe that their photo-card licences last for life. However, that is not so.

Unlike the old all-paper driving licences, which generally lasted until the age of 70 before requiring renewal, the new photo-card licences are only valid for a period of 10 years from date of issue.

Once the initial 10 year period has elapsed, the driver has to apply to renew that licence, if that licence is to remain valid beyond that 10 year period, and the driver will have to re-apply, every 10 years thereafter.

The reason such photo-card licences, unlike the old all-paper licences, have to be renewed every 10 years is so that the photograph can be updated to show the current likeness of the driver.

Statistics show that since 2010, almost three quarters of a million drivers have been caught driving with an out of date photo-card driving licence.

In addition to facing being fined and having points on your licence, of equal, or greater significance, is the fact that it could also render your motor insurance policy invalid !!

The reason for this is that, under the road traffic legislation, the “entitlement” to drive has ceased.

This unsatisfactory state of affairs has been contributed to by the fact that, on the front of the new photo-card driving licence, underneath the driver’s name and date of birth, are two sets of figures, “4a” and “4b”, without further explanation. It is only when you turn to the reverse side of the photo-card that, in the smallest of print, is written that 4a is the date the photo-card licence was issued and 4b is when the photo-card licence is valid to. Nothing on the photo-card licence tells you when the photo-card licences must be renewed.

The plain fact of the matter is that there is no obligation on the part of the issuing authority, unlike vehicle tax reminders, to write to you to remind you that you must renew the licence.

It is your responsibility to ensure that you diarise the expiry date of your photo-card driving licence and apply for renewal in time- otherwise you face the consequences referred to above.

For further information contact Paul Trincas on 01635 521212 or paul.trincas@clmlaw.co.uk

The recent decision by the Crown Prosecution Service to charge former Cabinet Minister, and Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, with perverting the course of justice in relation to an alleged speeding offence has brought home to people both the dangers and legal implications of trying to get others to take their penalty points for them. Paul Trincas, a lawyer and motoring specialist at Charles Lucas & Marshall explains why it is such a serious offence.

Avoiding Penalty Points

The allegation against Chris Huhne, arises from an alleged speeding offence which dates back to 2003. In short, it is alleged by the prosecution that he was the driver on the occasion in question but that he named his former wife as the driver in order to avoid taking the penalty points. These are facts which Chris Huhne strongly denies.

However, the above scenario is one that, I, in my professional capacity, have come across, I regret to say, on more occasions than I would care to remember.

Whenever someone’s vehicle is caught by a speed camera exceeding the limit, the normal procedure is that the police will send, initially to the registered keeper, a Notice, under section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 requiring the registered keeper to identify the driver. Failure to nominate and identify the driver, itself, constitutes an offence, carrying six penalty points and a fine of up to £1,000.

During my professional career, I have been faced, on many occasions, with having to advise people who have been served with such a notice to nominate and identify the driver of the vehicle in question, and who ask words along the lines -

“Well, what if I say that my wife/husband was driving ? “

It is clear that when people ask this question, they have no idea, either of the implications or the ramifications of what they are asking, or indeed, of the consequent severe penalties involved.

Whilst I cannot compel such people to take the right course of action, it is my policy to strongly advise and warn clients against such a course of action and that if they embark upon this course of action, and if caught out, this will constitute a serious criminal offence which will be taken very seriously by the courts. They could then ultimately face a far more serious charge of perverting, or attempting to pervert, the course of justice.

The fact that such an offence is a Class 3 Offence which can only be dealt with by the Crown Court, simply serves to illustrate its seriousness.

The penalty, if convicted of perverting, or attempting to pervert the course of justice, is an unlimited fine and/or a maximum term of life imprisonment. Most offences, if proven, will almost inevitably result in an immediate term of imprisonment, such is the seriousness of the offence.

Rightly accepting they were the driver must surely be a small price to pay when compared with the widespread ramifications of taking the risk of knowingly and wrongly stating someone else was the driver.

For further information contact Paul Trincas on 01635 521212 or paul.trincas@clmlaw.co.uk

Paul Trincas - Motoring Expert

Paul Trincas, a specialist in motoring litigation with lawyers, Charles Lucas & Marshall explains some of the delusions drivers labour under when it comes to motoring offences.

The British System of Penalty Points for contravention of Motoring Laws can have a significant impact on a driver’s life and employment, as well as their families and employers.

Very often I deal with cases where the offending driver has very little appreciation of the far reaching implications for them and others.

Speeding Offences

Many people still think they will only get three penalty points if they commit a speeding offence.

What they don’t often appreciate is that by committing such a basic offence, they are liable to have their licences endorsed, not with only three penalty points, but with points ranging between three and six penalty points.

The higher the speed attained, the higher the number of points likely to be endorsed.

So, for example, someone driving at say 55-60 mph in a 30mph zone, is likely to be liable to have five or possibly, the maximum, six penalty points endorsed on their licence.

Even worse, is that any offence that carries penalty points also carries discretionary disqualification as an alternative. Therefore, where the speed is significantly over the speed limit, the court can impose a period of disqualification instead of penalty points.

Accumulation of penalty points

Where people already have penalty points and commit subsequent motoring offences, once they attain 12 penalty points within the relevant three year period, then, by law, they must be disqualified from driving for a minimum period of six months.

In this scenario, the implications for the driver can be far reaching. Many people I see in this situation think they will be let off the hook if they argue they will lose their job if they are disqualified from driving for six months. This is NOT SO.

To avoid disqualification, the driver will have to establish “exceptional hardship.” While there is no formal legal definition of exceptional hardship, guidance and case law have evolved to explain what is required and it is a huge hurdle to avoid the mandatory six month period of disqualification. There have been cases where courts have held that even the loss of job is not sufficient.

Failure to Identify Driver

People do not realise that whenever they are served by the police with a request to identify the driver of a vehicle – usually in speed camera cases - if they fail to respond, this will result in a hefty six penalty points endorsed on their licence. This offence previously carried only three penalty points but this has now been increased to six.

If a driver already has 6 penalty points on their licence, perhaps for two previous low speeding offences, then they fall into the trap of being disqualified from driving for a minimum period of six months.

Motoring law is often viewed by drivers as a minor transgression. Yet breaking the law can have horrendous consequences and ruin people’s lives.

For further information contact Paul Trincas on 01635 521212 or paul.trincas@clmlaw.co.uk

As a solicitor dealing in motoring law,   I see from the recent news that the police are now specifically targetting lorry drivers.

The clip I heard and saw on the news indicated that the police will now be driving around in their own lorries, with an officer videoing other lorry drivers’ actions in the cab whilst driving, on the basis that in normal police vehicles they simply cannot see into the cab.

As with the argument on speed enforcement cameras, i.e.  whether they actually save lives or whether they are simply a revenue spinner, I have to say, although I may be wrong, that this again smacks of big brother in yet another attempt at raising revenue, and is a relatively easy job for the police to do and again aiming at ” soft” targets.

Any thoughts would be welcome.

In a recent case heard at Exeter Magistrates Court, both a husband and wife were convicted, fined, and had their licences endorsed with six penalty points after magistrates found that they had failed to identify who had been driving their vehicle.

The case involved the couple’s vehicle being clocked speeding, following which, the usual Notice requesting information to identify the driver was sent to the wife as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.

As both she and her husband would use the vehicle and indeed had both used the vehicle that day, she could not recall whether she or her husband had been driving at the relevant point in time.

Photographic evidence, whilst identifying the vehicle concerned, failed to identify the driver.

As a result, her husband was also sent a Notice to identify the driver, with a similar response.

As both were unable to identify who was driving at the time, summonses were served against each of them alleging failure to provide information as to the identity of the driver pursuant to S172 Road Traffic Act 1988, on the basis that it was for them to satisfy the court that they genuinely did not know who was driving at the time.

When the matter came before the court, neither attended with a view to establishing their case that they did not know who had been driving and they were convicted in their absence.

The legal requirement under S172 is to provide information as to the identity of the driver when requested to do so by the police. If a person is served with a Notice and fails to provide such information, then, in the absence of very good reason why that person is unable to provide such information, then the police will usually prosecute for failing to provide such information, with that person being left to persuade the court, by giving evidence, why he /she could not genuinely recall who was driving.

In the vast majority of cases, it is simply not enough to say “I don’t know who was driving”, or ” It might have been me or it might have been my husband”, as the court will need to be satisfied that all reasonable attempts had been made to trace the driver. As the onus will be on the person served with such Notice to provide reasons as to why they cannot identify the driver, it will be a rare case where such a defence will be established.

In the case in hand, both were fined and received 6 penalty points each on their licences as the offence of failing to provide such information, when requested to do so, carries a fixed 6 penalty points, whereas the offence of speeding itself carries 3-6 points.

For more information contact Paul Trincas on 01635 521212 or paul.trincas@clmsolicitors.co.uk

I was asked this question not long ago:

“I already have 9 penalthy points on my licence and have now been flashed by a Speed Camera for speeding. Is there a risk I could lose my license?” My answer? ” Yes – you will, for a minimum period of 6 months – unless you can persuade the court that this will lead to exceptional hardship”.

The above scenario is one I come across time and time again.
The legal position is quite clear in this situation. If you attain 12 or more penalty points within a period of 3 years, then the law is that you must be disqualified from driving for a minimum period of 6 months unless you can show that this would cause you “exceptional hardship”.

Establishing “hardship” is not enough as all such sentences are intended to cause hardship. You will need to establish “exceptional hardship”, which is something more that hardship.

There is no legal definition as to what constitutes “exceptional hardship”, and each case depends upon its own facts and circumstances. There have even been reported cases whereby the courts have held that even if your job depends upon you driving and you lose your job as a result eg HGV or Taxi driver, that this does not in itself necessarily result in exceptional hardship.

Your circumstances will therefore need to be looked at very carefully and your situation analysed to see whether you have grounds to establish exceptional hardship. What the courts tend to look for is whether, if you are disqualified from driving for 6 months, this would result in innocent third parties suffering exceptional hardship e.g. employees of yours who would as a result be made redundant, or perhaps the effects on a member of the family who relies upon you for driving.

Unless handled and presented properly by someone who knows what is involved and what is required to persuade the court not to disqualify you for 6 months, then your case could go horribly wrong, resulting in you not only being disqualified from driving for 6 months, but also risking losing your job and livelihood, not to mention the horrendous financial repercussions if this situation were to occur.

Too often I have sat, cringing at the back of the court, watching people, representing themselves without a solicitor, and making a complete hash of an otherwise good case, simply because

i)-they do not know what to say,
ii)-what not to say
iii)-what documents they need to present to the court in support of their case or
iv)- how to properly present their case to the court.

For those reasons, you should always, in the first instance at least, consult a solicitor specialising in this area.

Your solicitor will discuss the details of the case with you and advise as to whether your circumstances are such that they may amount to “exceptional hardship” justifying the court not disqualifying you from driving for 6 months.

Many people in this situation, and not having been in this situation before, merely think that they will either simply get 3 points and that’s the end of it, or that they believe (wrongly) that they can simply turn up at court, put forward any reason to avoid disqualification and get away with it.

That unfortunately, is not the case and people who attend court unrepresented thinking this, get the shock of their lives when they are disqualified from driving for 6 months with all the repercussions that may flow from such a period of disqualification.

The message is clear if faced with such a situation. You should first of all consult a solicitor and at least discuss the case with them so that you get proper advice. Depending upon that advice, you may then decide to engage the services of a solicitor to prepare and properly present you case at court. That way you at least stand a fighting chance.

There is nothing worse than having a good case, which is lost simply because of lack of knowledge as to what is required and poor presentation at court.

For more information contact Paul Trincas on 01635 521212 or paul.trincas@clmsolicitors.co.uk

The whole topic of the issuing of Parking Tickets and Wheel Clamping is a very emotive subject.

Where were you parked?

The first point to note is that parking tickets can be issued from 2 main sources- More often than not, the legality of the issuing of such parking tickets and the act of clamping vehicles, and the various methods of challenge, are either not known or grossly misunderstood.- Tickets issued by Public Authorities eg- The Police or Local Authority.

ii)- Tickets issued by Private Firms or Companies eg Supermarkets. Hospitals, retail parks and the like.

Very often, such private firms or companies engage a separate management company to deal on their behalf with the issue and management of private parking tickets.

This Article deals only with the legalities of those parking tickets issued by Private Firms or Companies, or by management companies engaged on their behalf to issue such parking tickets. A completely different set of rules applies to parking tickets issued by Public Authorities, which are not covered in this article.

Private Parking Tickets

The first thing to do if you receive a parking ticket is to check whether it is a ticket issued by a Public Authority or whether issued by, or on behalf of, a private firm or company. If you have been issued with a parking ticket by, or on behalf of a private firm or company, then, be aware that the issuing of such private parking tickets by private companies are largely unregulated, and strictly speaking, such private companies can charge what they like.

That said, many such private firms or companies are members of the British Parking Association, and if they are members, then the Association has its own Code of Practice which currently sets a maximum charge. The issuing of such parking tickets by private firms or companies (unlike parking tickets issued by the police or local authorities) does not constitute a fine or criminal offence.