It's not actually, Zacs.
The success rate of the "exceptional hardship" argument is quite high and a large number of the successful applicants either represent themselves or employ a jobbing solicitor.
The problem is that Magistrates' interpretation of "exceptional" has become increasingly less severe in recent years. Many Benches now take the view that loss of employment amounts to exceptional hardship when, in fact, it is almost certainly a given for somebody who needs to drive for their living and is by no means exceptional. However, most of the successes usually involve the plea that a ban will lead to hardship for somebody else (as in Mr Colleymore's case).
I am firmly of the belief that the facility to make the argument should be withdrawn. It is becoming abused and in any case those in danger of reaching twelve points have plenty of warning to moderate their driving. They need to consider what hardship might follow if they are banned rather than expect the court to agree that what is a perfectly forseeable consequence is "exceptional". They almost always know what a driving ban will mean to them and others who may rely on them. It is doubtful Mr Colleymore's mother became ill and dependant upon him between him having nine points on his licence and acquiring the other three. In many of these cases it is not "hardship" that will follow, but merely inconvenience.