Food & Drink0 min ago
29 Penalty Points And Still Driving !
http://
He was driving an unsafe car, didn't have insurance, and he was speeding. Am I alone in thinking that the Magistrates here have been extraordinarily generous in not banning this take-away driver ? What exactly would he have to do to lose his licence ?
He was driving an unsafe car, didn't have insurance, and he was speeding. Am I alone in thinking that the Magistrates here have been extraordinarily generous in not banning this take-away driver ? What exactly would he have to do to lose his licence ?
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No, you are not alone and I really dont understand Magistrates who do this.
//However, magistrates did not disqualify him after Udin said he would lose his job and make his family homeless.//
So now we all know the excuse to use when before the beak. Bet it wont work for most of us!.
//One motorist from the Liverpool area, was allowed to continue driving with 45 points.//
Oh well he will still be allowed to drive when he gets more points for no insurance next time, after all what insurance company is going to touch a takeaway driver with 29 points including for non insurance that they dont like at the best of times.
//However, magistrates did not disqualify him after Udin said he would lose his job and make his family homeless.//
So now we all know the excuse to use when before the beak. Bet it wont work for most of us!.
//One motorist from the Liverpool area, was allowed to continue driving with 45 points.//
Oh well he will still be allowed to drive when he gets more points for no insurance next time, after all what insurance company is going to touch a takeaway driver with 29 points including for non insurance that they dont like at the best of times.
It does seem astonishing that someone can accumulate that many points unyet still be allowed to drive.
I know that judges do have the option, under "exceptional circumstances", to waive the ban on driving, but cases like this are bound to make people question the system.
Rather more worryingly, from the BBC report, the IAM claim that over 7500 drivers on 12 points or more have been given an exemption from the ban. I wonder what proportion of people on 12 points are more 7500 represents?
It does rather sound as if some magistrates are being unduly lenient.
I know that judges do have the option, under "exceptional circumstances", to waive the ban on driving, but cases like this are bound to make people question the system.
Rather more worryingly, from the BBC report, the IAM claim that over 7500 drivers on 12 points or more have been given an exemption from the ban. I wonder what proportion of people on 12 points are more 7500 represents?
It does rather sound as if some magistrates are being unduly lenient.
It does seem strange that some people are exempt from punishment because of their personal circumstances, ie we're not all equal under the law.
He should really lose his job anyway, irrespective of whether he loses his licence. His employer should realise that anyone who's racked up that many penalty points shouldn't really be driving for a living.
He should really lose his job anyway, irrespective of whether he loses his licence. His employer should realise that anyone who's racked up that many penalty points shouldn't really be driving for a living.
Since I posted this earlier this morning, something else has occurred to me.
His 2 counts of driving without insurance intrigues me. Could his huge amount of penalty points have any connection with him not having insurance ? Would any company give him insurance if he had 11 points ? What happens now... he has 29 points. What company is going to insure him with that many points on his licence ?
His 2 counts of driving without insurance intrigues me. Could his huge amount of penalty points have any connection with him not having insurance ? Would any company give him insurance if he had 11 points ? What happens now... he has 29 points. What company is going to insure him with that many points on his licence ?
I think I answered a similar question a few weeks ago.
It is quite clear that the “exceptional hardship” provision is being far too liberally used in some parts of the country. In addition, from these examples where drivers have accumulated a large number of points, it is clear that the argument is being used on more than one occasion. The law states that the same argument cannot be used to avoid a ban more than once in three years. These drivers obviously have multiple reasons why they or others will suffer exceptional hardship.
In the area where I live to succeed with the argument is not an easy task and most applicants fail, even when represented by a lawyer in court. The hardship has to be truly exceptional. Generally the loss of employment is not considered exceptional in that it applies to anybody who needs to drive either to carry out their work or to travel to and from it. In fact driving for a living in my view aggravates the situation as professional drivers should not commit multiple offences.
I believe the law needs tightening. The most obvious option is to make the disqualification mandatory in the same way that a ban for excess alcohol is. (Magistrates can decline to impose a ban for that offence but only if there are circumstances surrounding the offence itself - e.g. proof that drinks were spiked. They cannot decline to impose a ban for “hardship” reasons as they can for “totting up“). Failing that far tighter guidelines need to be provided as it is obvious that at present too much discretion is being used and the law is falling into disrepute.
It is quite clear that the “exceptional hardship” provision is being far too liberally used in some parts of the country. In addition, from these examples where drivers have accumulated a large number of points, it is clear that the argument is being used on more than one occasion. The law states that the same argument cannot be used to avoid a ban more than once in three years. These drivers obviously have multiple reasons why they or others will suffer exceptional hardship.
In the area where I live to succeed with the argument is not an easy task and most applicants fail, even when represented by a lawyer in court. The hardship has to be truly exceptional. Generally the loss of employment is not considered exceptional in that it applies to anybody who needs to drive either to carry out their work or to travel to and from it. In fact driving for a living in my view aggravates the situation as professional drivers should not commit multiple offences.
I believe the law needs tightening. The most obvious option is to make the disqualification mandatory in the same way that a ban for excess alcohol is. (Magistrates can decline to impose a ban for that offence but only if there are circumstances surrounding the offence itself - e.g. proof that drinks were spiked. They cannot decline to impose a ban for “hardship” reasons as they can for “totting up“). Failing that far tighter guidelines need to be provided as it is obvious that at present too much discretion is being used and the law is falling into disrepute.
truly ridiculous
surely any crim on being sent to prison could claim it will cause "exceptional hardship" for their family
really dont see any difference here.
he is literally taking the pizz out of us and the fool of a magistrate or whatever he/she is, is helping him do it
truly laughable...am i suprised ...no
surely any crim on being sent to prison could claim it will cause "exceptional hardship" for their family
really dont see any difference here.
he is literally taking the pizz out of us and the fool of a magistrate or whatever he/she is, is helping him do it
truly laughable...am i suprised ...no
“Surely his employer should be fined heavily for using an uninsured driver”
Yes his employer could certainly face a charge of “allowing” the vehicle to be used uninsured (though that does not seem to have been the case here). However, unless his employer was a named individual, the “totting up” situation would not arise. In the case of companies or organisations (rather than individuals) being convicted of motoring offences no penalty points can be awarded.
“surely any crim on being sent to prison could claim it will cause "exceptional hardship" for their family”
Be careful what you wish for, baz:
http://
“But a judge suspended the sentence after learning that he needed to help his 26-year-old girlfriend, Emma McNeil, look after their seven-month-old baby, Barry. “
Yes his employer could certainly face a charge of “allowing” the vehicle to be used uninsured (though that does not seem to have been the case here). However, unless his employer was a named individual, the “totting up” situation would not arise. In the case of companies or organisations (rather than individuals) being convicted of motoring offences no penalty points can be awarded.
“surely any crim on being sent to prison could claim it will cause "exceptional hardship" for their family”
Be careful what you wish for, baz:
http://
“But a judge suspended the sentence after learning that he needed to help his 26-year-old girlfriend, Emma McNeil, look after their seven-month-old baby, Barry. “
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
Technology12 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Iphone To Android Adapter - Not For...
Technology22 mins ago
Starmer Continues With "Grossly...
News38 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles39 mins ago