Points on Driving Licence

[Meg888]

My partner (who already has 6 pts on his licence) was stopped & vehicle seized by police for driving without insurance. He and It has always been insured via a family member, however, we have yet to get to the bottom of it, but it has been cancelled unbeknown to us. The problem is he is self employed as a landscaper and work has been very thin, however, approaching summer it is about to pick up, without his licence it will be quite impossible to run his business and we don't have anyone else who can drive. His other chosen career was bus driving, so if no licence he wouldn't be able to return to that. Whilst the police were sympathetic, they pursued it & he is now awaiting a court date. The loss of his licence will incur severe financial problems for as we are mortgaged / financed etc and the only way to earn enough money to cover all this is in the job he is currently doing. Will the court take a view on this at all? Thanks in advance

[wired]

Yes they do take personal circumstances into consideration, they also consider irresponsible actions from someone who relies on his licence . It also depends on how he got the previous points, he really will have to rely on the mercy of the court.

[jake-the-peg]

It does happen but it's pretty unusual.

Pretty much anyone can claim personal financial hardship through the loss of their licence and I think there has been guidance to magistrates that personal financial hardship shouldn't be a taken into consideration.

Usually the most effective claims are those where others (not family members) will suffer - e.g. if you do a lot of charity work that you'd be unable to otherwise do.

However it does happen and if you can show that the insurance was cancelled without his knowledge you might just swing enough sympathy.

But I do have to say given the general attitude to driving without insurance I think it's a long shot.

[Ethel]

I can't get this 'insured through family member' straight.

Is it his van? Registered in his name? Why hasn't he insured it himself?

[lady_p_gold]

Surely you need the insurance to get the tax disc - at the end of the day you are responsible for ensuring your vehicle is insured, and seeing the documents.

[Meg888]

To Ethel & Lady P: His Father is the owner of the van that was seized, he insured my partner to drive it on his own insurance to which we reimbursed him each month. We did see ins docs when we taxed the vehicle back in January and obviously, everything was in order then. The reason we did not insure it on our own policy was due to the fact that his Father preferred it this way, as obviously it was his vehicle, which he basically 'loaned' to us and if we insured it on our own policy it was to prove costly as we were not the reg owner of the vehicle.

Thanks to all those who have taken the time to reply it is much appreciated. :-)

[themas]

So how come the father let the insurance lapse? You are going to have to have a full explanation of what happened to give the Court if you are to have any hope of getting sympathy from them.

[Meg888]

Between me, you & the www he's a bit of a Walter Mitty, so getting to the bottom of it is proving fruitless. I know the ins wasn't due to expire, personally, I think he cancelled it, thinking we wouldn't know about it, and not even dreaming of how hi tech these things have come to with the police nowadays. Anyhow, we're going to explain to the court that we were unaware and pray for mercy and a kind judge! ;-}

[themas]

I don't think the Court will place much credence on what you or your partner says unless it is backed up by firm evidence. Ideally the father should come to Court and confirm exactly what he did about the insurance, including confirming that he did not tell you or your partner it had been cancelled. If he can't/won't do that then he should complete an affidavit or stat. dec. (before a Court official or solicitor) stating the circumstances, so that it can be given to the Court. This is very much a second best and likely to carry much less weight with the Court as he would not then be present in Court to be questioned about what he did.