9 Points on license & now caught by speed camera, what ban?

[TankRizzo]

Tom_C76 said:

As has been said several times in this thread, it's date of offence, and that includes expiry of the old points. The oldest 3 expired on the 10th. That's two days before you got caught again.

Read a bit closer. His expired points were 10th Jul, not 10th Jun.

[caziques]

Looks like a small glitch in the DVLA computer which hasn't been picked up.

When the cheque arrived, the computer has seen that 3 points have expired, hence you were OK.

Buying a lottery ticket could be a good idea - and of course driving like a nun until next January.

[GreatGranny]

Pdelamare said:

You lucky bd.

Are you going to be more observant for speed cameras now?

Surely the question should be "Are you going to drive within the speed limit now?"

:-)

[anonymous-user]

Cooperman said:

If the letter had said '....all YOUR other options........' it might mean that THEIR other options are still open, but surely the meaning is clear and is not just 'one way'. If all other options are no longer available that should mean to either side. This could be argued if they returned the payment and when you appeared in court, or with the CPS prior to that.

Ho ho ho. Academic now, I know, but comedy gold.

[anonymous-user]

OP, you have dodged the bullet thanks to DVLA error, it appears. Lucky you!

Law fiends may wish to look up the public law concept of legitimate expectation (a tiny bit like the private law concept of estoppel, only not really). Legit expectation would not arise in respect of the options/no options letter. It could arise in respect of the "you are not banned" error.

I was similarly relieved when I pinged a camera the other week (pure stupidity on my part, no excuses). I did this one whole day after the expiry of three points on my licence, and thus won't get banned. I too am going to drive like my Nan until next January, when another three points expire. You see that bloke in the middle lane with the Werther's Originals and the rubbish hat who is really pissing you off? That's me, that is.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 30th July 14:14

[battered]

Lucky you. If I were in your position I'd be investing the difference between points and a ban in some advanced driver training. Every one of yours is SP30, so it's not as if there's any variation. One way or another you're going to have to change your behaviour in 30 limits or it's only going one way.

I know, I don't like driving at 29.5 mph either. But if it took me a couple of hundred quid at Cadence or wherever to teach me to behave myself then that's money well spent.

Alternatively, buy yourself a 2CV and a 1950's BSA. Each will take all day to get to ticketable speeds and the Beezer will spend most of its time in bits in a layby, so your licence is safe while you have a spanner in your hand at least.

[gadgetmac]

battered said:

Lucky you. If I were in your position I'd be investing the difference between points and a ban in some advanced driver training. Every one of yours is SP30, so it's not as if there's any variation. One way or another you're going to have to change your behaviour in 30 limits or it's only going one way.

I know, I don't like driving at 29.5 mph either. But if it took me a couple of hundred quid at Cadence or wherever to teach me to behave myself then that's money well spent.

Alternatively, buy yourself a 2CV and a 1950's BSA. Each will take all day to get to ticketable speeds and the Beezer will spend most of its time in bits in a layby, so your licence is safe while you have a spanner in your hand at least.

SP30 doesn't mean the limit was 30 mph. None of my transgressions were in a 30 zone. However I take your point.

[gadgetmac]

Sheepshanks said:

gadgetmac said:

Strange that I didn't get one of these.

I know you can't help yourself - not having a go, I'm sure I'd be the same - but I think this is one of those things that you ought to keep quiet about.

That's not boasting. I'm genuinely bemused as to why I didn't get one. I find it hard to imagine that computer system that's been running the show for umpteen years has a glitch that doesn't take into account 'date of conviction' when adding new points to a licence and flag up that a ban is due. That would surely mean thousands of people a year getting away with it.

I think it's more to do with the offer I was made being one that couldn't be rescinded by either party.

[JonV8V]

gadgetmac said:

Sheepshanks said:

gadgetmac said:

Strange that I didn't get one of these.

I know you can't help yourself - not having a go, I'm sure I'd be the same - but I think this is one of those things that you ought to keep quiet about.

That's not boasting. I'm genuinely bemused as to why I didn't get one. I find it hard to imagine that computer system that's been running the show for umpteen years has a glitch that doesn't take into account 'date of conviction' when adding new points to a licence and flag up that a ban is due. That would surely mean thousands of people a year getting away with it.

I think it's more to do with the offer I was made being one that couldn't be rescinded by either party.

Maybe an easy software mistake that uses today's date rather than date of incident. 99.9% of the time you'd get the same answer, in your case 3 points fell between the two 3 years prior and it did make a difference. I think that's more likely than someone overriding a ban.

[anonymous-user]

gadgetmac said:

....

I think it's more to do with the offer I was made being one that couldn't be rescinded by either party.

As noted above, it was nothing to do with that! The (now academic) argument that the letter would have precluded a ban is a rubbish argument that would have prompted the Magistrates to say "yuh Momma", double quick.

PS: You aren't even expressing the argument (rubbish though it is) correctly. An offer made to you could never be rescinded by you. The letter did not contain the offer that some suggest it made. The (non) point would be that the letter had the effect of representing to you that, if you accepted the fixed penalty, then you could not be banned on a totting up basis. The letter did not have that effect.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 30th July 14:01

[LoonR1]

gadgetmac said:

That's not boasting. I'm genuinely bemused as to why I didn't get one. I find it hard to imagine that computer system that's been running the show for umpteen years has a glitch that doesn't take into account 'date of conviction' when adding new points to a licence and flag up that a ban is due. That would surely mean thousands of people a year getting away with it.

I think it's more to do with the offer I was made being one that couldn't be rescinded by either party.

The DVLA earlier today

[anonymous-user]

Actual fer real LOL.

[B'stard Child]

battered said:

Lucky you. If I were in your position I'd be investing the difference between points and a ban in some advanced driver training. Every one of yours is SP30, so it's not as if there's any variation. One way or another you're going to have to change your behaviour in 30 limits or it's only going one way.

I know, I don't like driving at 29.5 mph either. But if it took me a couple of hundred quid at Cadence or wherever to teach me to behave myself then that's money well spent.

Alternatively, buy yourself a 2CV and a 1950's BSA. Each will take all day to get to ticketable speeds and the Beezer will spend most of its time in bits in a layby, so your licence is safe while you have a spanner in your hand at least.

Genuine lol at that - all of it - thanks

[gadgetmac]

I'm pretty certain that their multi million £££ computer system would send up a flare if you input 3 offence dates against someone's name that all fall within a given time frame. Even a spreadsheet can do that. The operator incompetence argument when weighed against (what would be) pretty basic software safeguards just doesn't gel for me.

Anyway - who cares?

[anonymous-user]

The DVLA is notoriously fallible (in my experience it works just fine, but many people seem to be unlucky with it). Any large bureaucracy will make some errors, and sometimes the error will favour the hapless punter. The idea that the DVLA considers itself bound by its letter to cut you a break is, I suggest, a daft idea.

Anyway, who cares?

[gadgetmac]

Breadvan72 said:

The DVLA is notoriously fallible (in my experience it works just fine, but many people seem to be unlucky with it). Any large bureaucracy will make some errors, and sometimes the error will favour the hapless punter. The idea that the DVLA considers itself bound by its letter to cut you a break is, I suggest, a daft idea.

Anyway, who cares?

The letter/offer wasn't actually made by the DVLA but by 'The Safety Camera Partnership in conjunction with Surrey Police'

That may be the gap through which I've squeezed but then I don't know how the system works.

[anonymous-user]

Irrelevant point. It could have come from Vladimir Putin or Santa Claus and this would make no difference. The letter is NOT the reason you have escaped bannage! It doesn't mean what some wag above suggested it means. He has planted a silly idea in your head. Unplant it!

[gadgetmac]

This is really irking now! I think I'll ring them to see if I can find out why I've been treated with such leniency.

[JonV8V]

gadgetmac said:

This is really irking now! I think I'll ring them to see if I can find out why I've been treated with such leniency.

Just go and get another ticket and see what they do. If you get banned you know it wasn't because you were special.

[Sheepshanks]

Breadvan72 said:

Irrelevant point. It could have come from Vladimir Putin or Santa Claus and this would make no difference. The letter is NOT the reason you have escaped bannage!

No, but the admin person, presumably at the local constabulary, receiving the returned fixed penalty acceptance, should have picked up that he'd hit 12 points. Then the DVLA's system should have bounced it automatically.

So it's slipped through 2 layers - and it can't be so unusual as it happened to someone else in this thread.