On the other hand, s.37(1) RTOA 1988 provides "Where the holder of a licence is disqualified by an order of a court, the licence shall be treated as being revoked with effect from the beginning of the period of disqualification." I assume from what the OP wrote that all the original offences were dealt with in court on the same occasion in October 2020, so the beginning of the period of disqualification was when the court made the pronouncement, and the licence was to be treated as revoked from then.

The New Drivers Act procedure is rather different, when the SoS, acting through the DVLA is notified of the imposition of points satisfying the conditions, the DVLA then revokes the licence. In this case the licence has already been revoked, and cannot be revoked again. As the licence has not been revoked under the New Drivers Act the provisions requiring a test to be passed before a new licence can be issued do not apply.

It is a somewhat bizarre result, I agree, but it does explain why the OP's daughter was not required to re-test, which is what seems to have happened from the OP's comment, "DVLA didn’t revoke her license completely which i must admit i was surprised at because she was a new driver. She got a ban for a year,"

This is the crucial point, if you were successful in an EH argument, you can put EH forward again but not relying on the same set of facts. If for some reason a court has not yet considered your apparent totting, and you wish to put forward EH for the first time, you will need to get all matters considered at the same time in the same court, by asking for matters to be transferred from other courts. This is not an uncommon procedure and the courts should co-operate.

It is entirely natural to want to get your grandson medical help as quickly as possible, but the law is quite cold-blooded about such situation, was the child actually at risk if he did not get help? From the fact that he then fell asleep and you took him to his home instead that does not seem likely. On the other hand, lay magistrates are likely to be more sympathetic to your situation than perhasps they should be, sometimes acquitting when the driver was in no more danger than soiling themselves.

You unfortunately do not give us any information as to the limit and your speed, but unless you were very much over the limit it is probably best to just accept the penalty offerred, if you try your luck in court and fail the penalties will be much higher, an income based fine and costs from £620.

That is quite correct. My guess is that as she had six speeding offences within less than a year after passing her test, the court decided to increase the disqualification period from the minimum of six months to one year. And that this happened so quickly that she was never in the position of having six points on her licence, having been superseded by the TT99, so the New Drivers Act never came into force, since it does not apply to a disqualification, rather strangely.

If the NIP was sent by second class post then it was not properly served and you cannot be convicted, but it is unlikely that such an egregious mistake was made, more likely that is an assumption you have made because the marked postage is below the first class standard rate, but it was probably sent at the discounted first class rate applicable to bulk mailings, so you need to check before relying on your assumption.

Do not say you are not sure of the driver, that way will more than likely lead to 6 points as explained above, on the other hand if you name the wrong driver, a) no harm will befall you if you made your best efforts to get it right and it was not an attempt to shift the blame for convenience, and b) it is unlikely to come to light anyway.

When was this?

The camera is located on the centre reservation of the dual carriageway, directly opposite Courtland Avenue, possibly it can cover either S/B or N/B traffic but I have only ever seen it covering N/B, the direction in which you were travelling. The location given is that your vehicle was near Courtland Avenue, THIS is the view from the end of Courtland Avenue, the camera can be seen level with the cab roof of the blue and white artic travelling South, the camera is monitoring Northbound traffic, very near to Courtland Avenue but on the other ide of the dual carriageway. I see nothing wrong in giving the location of that traffic as near Courtland Avenue, I do not think that you could persuade a court that the location was not clear.

Just to clarify, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire are separate forces but have a number of specialist units where they work together, and these include road traffic, see tri-force units

I would write rather than phone again, pointing out that the cameras were very close and your speed at each almost identical, so you were clearly maintaining the same speed and this should be treated as a single continuous offence, rather than two offence.

Do not refer to your phone call, that is asking them to admit they were wrong previously and they hate to admit they are ever wrong

How come you were able to check the V5C if you sold the car in February?

\they will almost certainly be able to prove that they posted the NIP to you in good time, we are told that there systems prevent late NIPS being sent out.

Have they replied to your nomination of your self as the driver on that occasion?

In the very early days of motoring it was realised that motorists had the mobility to cover distance very easily, taking them beyond the area in which they were known and recognisable, they could therefore commit offences and speed off before their identity could be established, pursued only by the outraged cries of those they had left behind in their dust, literally in those days! The idea was therefore developed of putting numbers on cars so that offenders could be identified. This caused outrage, compelling motorists to carry numbers put them on the same level as convicts, it was intolerable. Despite these protestsd the measure was cpushed through, vehicles would be made to carry numbers and a record was kept of which motorists owned which car, it is then only a small step to demand that the registered keeper disclose who was driving the car on a particular occasion. It is not entirely necessary, it could be made a statutary assumption that the keeper of the car was driving unless it was disproved, and that would indeed have some advantages, for instances where the driver could not be determined the keeper would simply be assumed to be the driver, saving some agonising. However, that is not the situation we have, and we have to deal with the law as it is.

The court considered that it is more important that the police should be able to use speed cameras than that the privelege against self-incrinimation should be observed.

or

Judges acknowledged that both men had faced compulsion to provide information, but threw out their claim that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself are "absolute rights".

Their judgement noted that people "who choose to keep and drive cars" have implicitly "accepted certain responsibilities" under UK law.

This includes an obligation to name the driver of a vehicle after a road traffic offence has been committed.

The judges also pointed out that UK law made it clear that no offence has been committed if a car owner can prove that he or she did not know, and could not be expected to know, who was driving the vehicle.

Friend appears to have told the insurance company that the vehicle was scrapped and got the insurance cancelled, or failed to renew it, but not told the DVLA. The thing is friend was the registered keeper and it was friend's responsibility to inform the DVLA that the car had been scrapped. The acknowledgement slip that the DVLA send out states

ACKNOWLEGEMENT

This confirms that we have updated our records for this vehicle and you are no longer the registered keeper of:

Vehicle registration number AAXX AAA
Make AAAAAAAAAA
Model AAXX

The only date is the date printed.

FURTHER INFORMATION
It says that they may have printed vehicle tax reminders up to 6 weeks befoe the tax runs out
and if you get any penalty notices you should contact the office that sent you the notice (But of course friend has already done that and the offer of a penalty resulted.


So a court might a) accept the paperwork from the ATF as evidence that the vehicle was scrapped in September and she had no duty to insure a vehicle that no longer existed, or b) might take the line that until the DVLA was informed that the vehicle had been scrapped, then insurance should be paid.

I think b) is more likely. and the prosecution costs for found guilty after trial will be quite considerable.

This

That speed should produce the offer of a course, provided you have not done one for an offence within the previous 3 years

That is within the range for a fixed penalty, so £100 + 3 points

As I said above:
Meanwhile write back asking for any available photographs to assist in identifying the driver, making no mention of proof or evidence which you are not entitled to at this stage. Most forces will send these or direct you to a website. Then you should be able to see where this was and confirm it was your car.
This does not stop the time running on the 28 days you have to respond. Failing to identify the driver is a much more serious offence than speeding, so do not risk that.

Much of London now has 20mph limits so you have to be aware of them.Old Oak Road has them all along.

Online courses started during lockdown, whether that has continued in the Met area I don't know. They offer a course provided you have not done for an offence within the previous 3 years to the current offence and for speeds up to limit concerned.The Met follows the National Police Chief Council (NPCC) guidelines and the speed thresholds are up to 31 mph in a 20 mph limit, up to 42 mph in a 30 mph limit, up to 53 mph in a 40 mph and up to 63 mph in a 50 mph.





Yes, there are no legal restrictions on the placing of cameras, anyway that sign is only a repeater, it is a 20mph limit all along Old Oak Road, and the road is so marked.

Well yes, but you are not equally credible, the officer presumably does not know you and has no reason to fabricate evidence since there are enough people doing daft things on the road without adding you, on the other hand you have every reason not to admit to committing an offence, so the odds are strongly in favour of the court prefering the officer's evidence.

The NIP tells you where it was, Old Oak Road, near Hemlock Road, going Northbound.

So it looks as though it was THIS camera, on the corner of Hemlock Road. THE CAMERA has a reminder speed limit sign on it and there are markings on the road.
If you give us further details by completing the NIP Wizard, accessible from the grey bar, RH side, at the top of the page, filling in all the details including the additional questions, there may be some thing else we can do. Meanwhile write back asking for any available photographs to assist in identifying the driver, making no mention of proof or evidence which you are not entitled to at this stage. Most forces will send these or direct you to a website. Then you should be able to see where this was and confirm it was your car.
This does not stop the time running on the 28 days you have to respond. Failing to identify the driver is a much more serious offence than speeding, so do not risk that.

You don't say, was the speeding near Sheffield or near your home? Did you leave the car at home and were the keys available for other people to drive and was it insured for others? Have you questioned possible drivers?

As above, just consider if you had been using it on the road the situation would look exactly as it was when the DVLA van came round. I suspect that had it simply been that the tax had expired it would have been a warning, but the fact that it was SORNed and on the road resulted in them immediately going to a penalty. If it goes to court you will be found guilty because you did commit the offence, the vehicle was SORNed but was on the road, it's that simple. You would have to pay road tax from the time the last road road tax expired, plus a fine, plus victim surcharge plus costs.

But perhaps you were in a hire car? Possibly then they will get the hire company to pay any penalty, then they may try to pass it on to you by charging your credit card.

They do say that crime doesn't pay.............................................................................
...............................enough

And with what has happened to criminal legal aid rates that must be true.


I have never seen anyone quite so uncomfortable in court as a family solicitor asked to appear for his elderly lady client in a drink drive case, she having been pulled over by the police for driving excessivle slowly. The solicitor rose to his feet and explained that he had been asked to represent his client, he was not there to mitigate for her, still less to defend her, but simply at her request to explain what had happened. She was of an age when her memory was not what it was, and when she was at this function she forgot what she had drunk already, so accepted more drinks on a number of occasions, and that was how she came most unfortunately to be well over the limit.

The court will want to see you in person and possibly question you. It will be helpful to have it written out to make sure that you include everything you want to say. You will need copies for the three magistrates, the legal advisor and the prosecutor.

Look at the guidance to the court posted above, and consider how to respond, for instance the lines "If a motorist continues to offend after becoming aware of the risk to their licence of further penalty points, the court can take this circumstance into account." raise the question "You knew you were on 9 points, if keeping your licence is so important to you in order to keep in touch with your daughter, why were you risking it by speeding?" This is a favourite with courts.