Driving Offence Advice

[DavidMartin]

Just an update, work is ok as he had declared his offences and they had offered him the job knowing what he had. He has been given the contact details of the appeals dept at the DVLA and is faxing off the relevant information that they said they had only just received (which was sent at the time of the points being added). His employer has written a letter as well so fingers crossed he may get it back.
He's now looking at lessons etc just in case he doesn't get it back.
As said its not he wanted to get away with anything as had they revoked his license at the time of the offence he would have retook his test etc. Its frustrating that they have 2 years later revoked the license and within the last 2 years he has got himself a good job, and had a littlun.

Many thanks for the replies I'll repost when we have an answer from the appeal

 

[odd jim]

Same thing just wrong wording on my part ;-) apologies

It's not the same at all. A ban means you are disqualified from holding a licence for a set time.

A revocation means your *full* entitlement has been revoked, but you still hold a provisional licence but can re take a test as soon as you want.

 

[odd jim]

You should check with the DVLA to establish the status of your licence. If it has been revoked and you continue to drive, you not only commit the offence of driving otherwise than in accordance with your licence, but this would also invalidate your insurance which would lead to a further prosecution.

So does that mean he's been driving illegaly for two years? Or is the dvla saying its only just realised he slipped through the net and have now revoked the licence?

It won't invalidate the insurance. Disqualified driving will, but driving otherwise in accordance with a licence won't as they still hold a valid licence, albeit a provisional one.

 

[Keith W]

It won't invalidate the insurance. Disqualified driving will, but driving otherwise in accordance with a licence won't as they still hold a valid licence, albeit a provisional one.

Only if they had a person with a full licence in the car with them whilst driving.

If they got caught driving on there own with just a provisional licence then there insurance would be invalidated

 

[odd jim]

Only if they had a person with a full licence in the car with them whilst driving.

If they got caught driving on there own with just a provisional licence then there insurance would be invalidated

No not at all.

An insurance company will still indemnify the driver, and the driver only commits an offence of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence. You can take my word on that fact.

 

[Keith W]

No not at all.

An insurance company will still indemnify the driver, and the driver only commits an offence of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence. You can take my word on that fact.

You will excuse me if I do not take your word as fact

I know of 2 people, one a family member and one a close friend, who were prosecuted for driving there cars on just a provisional licence and because of this there insurance was invalidated and they were further prosecuted for that.

 

[odd jim]

You will excuse me if I do not take your word as fact

I know of 2 people, one a family member and one a close friend, who were prosecuted for driving there cars on just a provisional licence and because of this there insurance was invalidated and they were further prosecuted for that.

As I said, it's doesn't and that's fact. I won't argue as I'm confident my years in this field of expertise have given me enough experience not to question it.

The only time it might invalidate the policy is if the driver in question **lied**, telling them they had a full licence at the time the policy was taken out when they held a provisional licence (then it becomes a criminal offence of fraud).

I think you'll find your friends and family (its unfortunate that BOTH your friends and family have been prosecuted??) members had more to it than a simple licence offence.

 

[Keith W]

As I said, it's doesn't and that's fact. I won't argue as I'm confident my years in this field of expertise have given me enough experience not to question it.

I think you'll find your friends and family members had more to it than a simple licence offence.

You quite often come out with the the line about your experience in your job yada yada yada

It means nothing on a forum.... my years of experience using them tells me that

No there was nothing more to it than what I have stated




***** Just for clarity odd jim edited his post as I was replying, I replied to his original post that I have quoted *****

 

[odd jim]

You quite often come out with the the line about your experience in your job yada yada yada

It means nothing on a forum.... my years of experience using them tells me that

No there was nothing more to it than what I have stated

Ok, typical Internet armchair rubbish from you Keith. Enjoy.

Just trying to ensure the OP doesn't get unnecessarily concerned by your wholly incorrect armchair "facts", and if my years as a traffic cop don't count in an advice thread like this, then I really won't waste anymore time here.

I'm stepping out of this one as no matter how accurate my advice is, there's always someone that'll try and argue against it.

 

[srichards]

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/advice/news/archive/Is-your-insurance-valid/

Parkers suggests it is possible for someone driving on a provisional, outside the terms of that provisional insurance, to have their insurance declared invalid.

Driving without a valid licence

If you drive your car without a valid or current licence then your insurance will be void. Likewise you can also invalidate a policy if you drive unattended on a provisional licence - as all policies carry a condition that state you must be supervised by a fully qualified driver.

It will depend on the insurer's particular terms.

 

[odd jim]

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/advice/news/archive/Is-your-insurance-valid/

Parkers suggests it is possible for someone driving on a provisional, outside the terms of that provisional insurance, to have their insurance declared invalid.

Driving without a valid licence

If you drive your car without a valid or current licence then your insurance will be void. Likewise you can also invalidate a policy if you drive unattended on a provisional licence - as all policies carry a condition that state you must be supervised by a fully qualified driver.

It will depend on the insurer's particular terms.

A provisional licence is still a valid licence.

A licence that isn't valid would be, for example, a Chinese licence if they have been resident here for over a year.

Of course, insurance companies have their own terms and conditions which they can themselves then refuse to pay out for the offending drivers car if they think the civil terms of contract have been broken. However, they are still bound by law to indemnify all third parties, thus paying out for the innocent parties damages. As long as the person taking out the policy has informed them a driver listed has a provisional licence as they will take that into consideration when they calculate the risks.

However, the driver, while the insurance company might not pay out for them, does not commit the actual offence of driving without insurance as third parties would still be covered under theses circumstances (that's all you need in law) I'm trying to make this as simple as possible!

Anyway I'm backing out of this as stated in my last post! I'd suggest looking at the Road Traffic Act not anything else in relation to the actual offence of no insurance.

 

[Steve Smith]

Most insurance policies state 'has a licence or is capable of obtaining a licence' in the terms and conditions.


Steve.

 

[srichards]

A provisional licence is still a valid licence.

A licence that isn't valid would be, for example, a Chinese licence if they have been resident here for over a year.

Of course, insurance companies have their own terms and conditions which they can themselves then refuse to pay out for the offending drivers car if they think the civil terms of contract have been broken. However, they are still bound by law to indemnify all third parties, thus paying out for the innocent parties damages. As long as the person taking out the policy has informed them a driver listed has a provisional licence as they will take that into consideration when they calculate the risks.

However, the driver, while the insurance company might not pay out for them, does not commit the actual offence of driving without insurance as third parties are covered. I'm trying to make this as simple as possible!

Anyway I'm backing out of this as stated in my last post! I'd suggest looking at the Road Traffic Act not anything else in relation to the actual offence of no insurance.

So what you're saying is, even if you deliberately drive as a provisional driver on provisional insurance on your own ie without the supervising passenger as clearly stipulated in the terms and conditions your insurance, you are still covered for the legal minimum as required by law?

 

[odd jim]

So what you're saying is, even if you deliberately drive as a provisional driver on provisional insurance on your own ie without the supervising passenger as clearly stipulated in the terms and conditions your insurance, you are still covered for the legal minimum as required by law?

Yes, the driver would be reported for the licence offence and have the car seized. The legal minimum relates to third parties, and as long as they haven't lied about the status of a licence at the time the policy is taken out (which is fraud).

Take for example a stolen car, which crashes into an innocent motorist. The insurance company of the stolen vehicle will still pay out to third parties even if that driver is disqualified. That driver commits the offence of no insurance though on the virtue that he's not covered on that policy or another and the car is stolen, and the fact he's disqualified so that's not the best example per se but the simplest I can think of right now!

But a driver legitimately in a car with a provisional, active licence with a policy in force won't commit the offence of no insurance. under the road traffic act, but obviously commits licence offences.

 

[fracster]

I do admire you Jim,many times you have tried to advise people on these matters,given your practical experience and knowledge,in many threads,I do wonder why you bother with so many Road Traffic law experts on here.

 

[Keith W]

..... my years as a traffic cop.......

You keep saying your a police officer Jim but it is just empty words on an internet forum.

Anyway as you have claimed, yet again, that you are a police officer I am asking you to provide a scan of your I.D/Warrant card to verify that you are indeed who you claim to be

You should know that if you claim to be a police officer to anyone that they have the right to ask to see your warrant card to verify your claims.

So either put up or shut up

 

[odd jim]

Lol you really are strange Keith.

Do you HONESTLY think I'd put a scan of my warrant card on the Internet???!?!

If you don't believe me that's down to you and I couldn't care less, but how does this help the OP??

And no, if I'm asked over the Internet I don't have to show you!

 

[odd jim]

I do admire you Jim,many times you have tried to advise people on these matters,given your practical experience and knowledge,in many threads,I do wonder why you bother with so many Road Traffic law experts on here.

Lol thanks Fracster, I really don't know why I bother...

 

[srichards]

Yes, the driver would be reported for the licence offence and have the car seized. The legal minimum relates to third parties, and as long as they haven't lied about the status of a licence at the time the policy is taken out (which is fraud).

Take for example a stolen car, which crashes into an innocent motorist. The insurance company of the stolen vehicle will still pay out to third parties even if that driver is disqualified.

Thank you for that clarification.

 

[fracster]

Anyway as you have claimed, yet again, that you are a police officer I am asking you to provide a scan of your I.D/Warrant card to verify that you are indeed who you claim to be

Possibly,on second thoughts, thee most ridiculous request ever asked of a serving officer...................

 

[Keith W]

Possibly,on second thoughts, thee most ridiculous request ever asked of a serving officer...................

Serving officer says who?

You?

Jim?

Means nothing

And it is a request any member of the public can make of anyone who claims to be a police officer and it is a request said officer should comply with

 

[fracster]

This is an internet forum FFS. Like he is gonna scan his warrant card and post it on here to satisfy anyone. Would you scan and post your passport?

 

[odd jim]

Serving officer says who?

You?

Jim?

Means nothing

And it is a request any member of the public can make of anyone who claims to be a police officer and it is a request said officer should comply with

No Keith, police officers don't have to put a scan of their warrant card on the Internet when asked...

Seriously, I'm not going to try and offer anyone advice on here anymore.

 

[Keith W]

I am not going to waste my time any more

Anyone can claim to be anything they want on an internet forum and one thing years of experience tells me is your take these claims with a very large pinch of salt

Bye bye

 

[Keith W]

This is an internet forum FFS. Like he is gonna scan his warrant card and post it on here to satisfy anyone. Would you scan and post your passport?

No because I am not obliged to

 

[odd jim]

I am not going to waste my time any more

Anyone can claim to be anything they want on an internet forum and one thing years of experience tells me is your take these claims with a very large pinch of salt

Bye bye

Why are you so worked up, all I was doing is providing advice to the OP? I don't get where you've become so incensed, or is this just trolling?

 

[odd jim]

No because I am not obliged to

Neither is a police officer obliged to scan their warrant card to you.

I'm not dealing with you in a police capacity for one thing! As for putting it over the interweb...

 

[fracster]

No because I am not obliged to

Nor is Jim obliged to post a scan of his warrant card. Really Keith, surely you can see what a bizzarre request that was?

Got some logs to split,later.

 

[Keith W]

No Keith, police officers don't have to put a scan of their warrant card on the Internet when asked...

Seriously, I'm not going to try and offer anyone advice on here anymore.

I think you know full well what I am getting at Jim, I mean you are a police officer after all are you not?

If you claim to a member of the public [on the road/out and about] that you are a police officer they have the right to ask you to show them your warrant card to verify who you say you are and you are obliged to show them

And if you now come back and say that is not the case then I know you are talking bull


EDIT:

I'm not dealing with you in a police capacity for one thing!

But you are making claims you are a police officer Jim and making claims that the advice you are giving is based on your experiences as a serving police officer, this means you are acting under oath

If you were not acting in your police capacity then you should make no mention of it what so ever nor make any claim that you are a serving police officer, the moment you do that changes things

END OF EDIT

Anyway I really am out of this thread now, got better things to do

 

[Tigger.ufo]

I think you know full well what I am getting at Jim, I mean you are a police officer after all are you not?

If you claim to a member of the public [on the road/out and about] that you are a police officer they have the right to ask you to show them your warrant card to verify who you say you are and you are obliged to show them

And if you now come back and say that is not the case then I know you are talking bull

Anyway I really am out of this thread now, got better things to do

I think even you have to agree Keith, that the internet is a completely different thing to being out and about on a one to one basis!

Edit...and the above edit is even MORE unreasonable!


Heather

 

[odd jim]

I think you know full well what I am getting at Jim, I mean you are a police officer after all are you not?

If you claim to a member of the public [on the road/out and about] that you are a police officer they have the right to ask you to show them your warrant card to verify who you say you are and you are obliged to show them

And if you now come back and say that is not the case then I know you are talking bull

EDIT:

But you are making claims you are a police officer Jim and making claims that the advice you are giving is based on your experiences as a serving police officer, this means you are acting under oath

If you were not acting in your police capacity then you should make no mention of it what so ever nor make any claim that you are a serving police officer, the moment you do that changes things

END OF EDIT

Anyway I really am out of this thread now, got better things to do

Keith, it was only mentioned to give my advice some perspective on its accuracy, not because I'm asking to enter your house... It's a wholly different situation. I can't even believe we are discussing this? ? !

And no, I'm certainly not under oath, only a court can can make someone do that.

I despair. How can one person turn an advice thread, when advice is given, into something like this? I'm disappointed my contribution has caused this, so I'm not going to bother offering anymore useful advice on here, and just stick to the photography sections...

 

[arclight]

No prizes for guessing where this thread is heading.

 

[Rob 80386]

Just an update, work is ok as he had declared his offences and they had offered him the job knowing what he had. He has been given the contact details of the appeals dept at the DVLA and is faxing off the relevant information that they said they had only just received (which was sent at the time of the points being added). His employer has written a letter as well so fingers crossed he may get it back.
He's now looking at lessons etc just in case he doesn't get it back.
As said its not he wanted to get away with anything as had they revoked his license at the time of the offence he would have retook his test etc. Its frustrating that they have 2 years later revoked the license and within the last 2 years he has got himself a good job, and had a littlun.

Many thanks for the replies I'll repost when we have an answer from the appeal

The thread ended with this post, anything after that just dragged it down into a petty exchange.

 

[Mikesphotaes]

No prizes for guessing where this thread is heading.

Aye, shame really as I didn't know about that provisional / insurance thing either and it's always nice to increase one's knowledge, thanks for that, Jim.

 

[Keith W]

And no, I'm certainly not under oath, only a court can can make someone do that.

.

That comment seals it for me

I do not for one second believe you are a police officer Jim, if you were you would not have made such a silly and incorrect statement as that


I know I said I wouldn't comment any more but I just had to pick up on this

Right I am really am out this now

 

[odd jim]

The thread ended with this post, anything after that just dragged it down into a petty exchange.

Sorry, just trying to correct some incorrect advice, but yes you're right, shouldn't have bothered.

 

[Hacker]

Time for the thread to get back on topic.

Keith is having some time off to think about his posting style. We do not want to see this thread de-railed any further.

 

[gramps]

Right I am really am out this now

Looks like!

 

[big soft moose]

Returning to the original point of the thread - the OPs sons best bet is to retake his test as soon as possible - having a long drawn out argument with the DVLA may be emotionally satisfying but it wont help as he won't be able to drive until it is concluded (assuming it concludes in his favour which it probably won't)

If he's been driving for nearly four years total the theory test should be a PoC , and the actual test not too challenging either ( though i would advise a couple of lessons to pick up the fiddly bits like remembering to shuffle the wheel through your hands etc)

I'd also say come clean to his employer - if they've invested in him they are unlikely to dismiss if hes othewise a valued member of staff, so long as he gets a new licence asap

 

[DavidMartin]

Returning to the original point of the thread - the OPs sons best bet is to retake his test as soon as possible - having a long drawn out argument with the DVLA may be emotionally satisfying but it wont help as he won't be able to drive until it is concluded (assuming it concludes in his favour which it probably won't)

If he's been driving for nearly four years total the theory test should be a PoC , and the actual test not too challenging either ( though i would advise a couple of lessons to pick up the fiddly bits like remembering to shuffle the wheel through your hands etc)

I'd also say come clean to his employer - if they've invested in him they are unlikely to dismiss if hes othewise a valued member of staff, so long as he gets a new licence asap

I did think twice before starting this thread, everyone has their opinions and thoughts wether they be right or wrong.

As said earlier his employer is ok with the situation and has also written to the DVLA. They have said he should have an answer in about 3 weeks to his appeal. He has been in touch with his old driving instructor and is looking at getting some lessons sorted.

As I mentioned earlier I will post once his appeal letter etc has been answered. As a some have previously said I'm not going to bet my house on a positive outcome.

Some kids nowadays think us parents know sod all and don't listen to our advice, but I think deep down he is probably thinking he had wished he had listened to me