DVLA has banned me from driving for 4 years..and it wasnt me
Discussion
GC8 said:
I disagree, it was poor advice. Separate from that, I think, is that fact that the OP wasn't actually banned and probably hadn't had his licence revoked (yet).
DVLA was notified in November 2016 of a 56+ day disqualification. What makes you think that his licence 'probably' wasn't revoked? jith said:
superlightr said:
TooMany2cvs said:
CAPP0 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Gotta be a cockup by the paper, surely? Minimum ban for a first offence drink-drive is 1yr. Mind you, he wasn't very far over the limit - and would have been legal anywhere else in the UK. 33ug/100ml, versus a limit of 22 in Scotland and 35 elsewhere.
May have already been asked - but what if an English driver gets convicted at, say, 30ug in Scotland; do they lose their licence to drive in the UK, or only in Scotland?Legal in the England but illegal in Scotland - sure a ban in Scotland but Shirley unfair for a ban in England to apply? The same limits should apply nationwide if it were to be a nationwide driving ban.
Just trying to think of other comparisons where the bar changes for the offence in the UK when stepping over from England to Scotland or Wales but the penalty applies to the whole of the UK but cant think of any?
the closest are perhaps bylaws say on drinking in public but its a fine not a nationwide ban for a localised issue.
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 5th January 10:48
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 5th January 10:50
Secondly, it is clearly out of harmony with the rest of the UK, and this will open the door for legal challenges on those grounds. You are drunk in Gretna, but sober, just 200 yards over the border in Cumbria. The problem is obvious and it will be challenged probably by someone like a footballer who has a massive income and cares not about the legal costs. Bear in mind, in criminal cases in Scotland you don't get a penny in expenses from the courts even if you win outright. It is arguably the worst prejudice in the whole Scottish legal system, and an obvious deterrent to defence.
J
really ? so what you are saying is that if I had a few drinks but wasnt over the limit then Im ok to drive and if I have an accident its ok as Im not really drunk... What if I was to say that as you had those few drinks, and you were borderline can you not see that maybe just maybe that drink had dulled your senses enough that you never saw the pedestrian or that you were a little slower on the brakes when the car in front slowed ?
The whole point of the law in scotland is the law is trying to discourage folks from driving. No drink and driving is acceptable
CAPP0 said:
May have already been asked - but what if an English driver gets convicted at, say, 30ug in Scotland; do they lose their licence to drive in the UK, or only in Scotland?
Don't have a (strong) pint and drive a vehicle over 7.5 tonnes on a NSL road in excess of 40mph with an unlicensed air rifle with you, or you could be without your driving license and 'freedom' for a while. ToMBoMB said:
Just another update. My local MP has been back to me and said he has passed my email to him on to Chris Grayling (the secretary of transport). In the email I laid out everything that has gone on. My MP also suggested to send the story to the national press even though it is now resolved.
Said he wont pass it on until I say so but seemed to think it was a good idea.
OP, I'd be very interested to hear what reply you get from Chris Grayling.Said he wont pass it on until I say so but seemed to think it was a good idea.
Edited by ToMBoMB on Friday 6th January 12:29
I went down this route, for different reasons but DVLA related. The reply from the Sec of Transport was that they couldn't deal with the matter directly but had passed it on to the head of complaints at the DVLA.
If the same happens I'd also be interested in the DVLA's reply,
ta.
chilistrucker said:
OP, I'd be very interested to hear what reply you get from Chris Grayling.
I went down this route, for different reasons but DVLA related. The reply from the Sec of Transport was that they couldn't deal with the matter directly but had passed it on to the head of complaints at the DVLA.
If the same happens I'd also be interested in the DVLA's reply,
ta.
Will keep the thread updatedI went down this route, for different reasons but DVLA related. The reply from the Sec of Transport was that they couldn't deal with the matter directly but had passed it on to the head of complaints at the DVLA.
If the same happens I'd also be interested in the DVLA's reply,
ta.
ruggedscotty said:
The first is it won't make a jot of differece to the problem of drunk driving, as those near the limit are not the problem, those who are seriously drunk are.
really ? so what you are saying is that if I had a few drinks but wasnt over the limit then Im ok to drive and if I have an accident its ok as Im not really drunk... What if I was to say that as you had those few drinks, and you were borderline can you not see that maybe just maybe that drink had dulled your senses enough that you never saw the pedestrian or that you were a little slower on the brakes when the car in front slowed ?
The whole point of the law in scotland is the law is trying to discourage folks from driving. No drink and driving is acceptable
The whole point of the law in Scotland is just the SNP government trying to prove they can disrupt the whole country by creating divisive laws like this, due to a person being technically drunk six inches on the Scottish side of the boarder but sober a foot south its inevitable the rest of the UK will eventually have to follow suit.
really ? so what you are saying is that if I had a few drinks but wasnt over the limit then Im ok to drive and if I have an accident its ok as Im not really drunk... What if I was to say that as you had those few drinks, and you were borderline can you not see that maybe just maybe that drink had dulled your senses enough that you never saw the pedestrian or that you were a little slower on the brakes when the car in front slowed ?
The whole point of the law in scotland is the law is trying to discourage folks from driving. No drink and driving is acceptable
The whole point of the law in Scotland is just the SNP government trying to prove they can disrupt the whole country by creating divisive laws like this, due to a person being technically drunk six inches on the Scottish side of the boarder but sober a foot south its inevitable the rest of the UK will eventually have to follow suit.
pim said:
All those near the limit are not the problem? Some people can drink 4/5 pints and be near the limit.Others one drink and can be over the limit.
Just stay away from alcoholic drinks driving a car please.
Not a hint at a zero BAC limit, surely?! That would be silly and offer no safety benefits.Just stay away from alcoholic drinks driving a car please.
We'd need to know about and stay away from some:
Foods.
Mouthwashes.
Holy Communion wine (though some are non-alcoholic).
Medicines.
The current BAC limit (England at least) isn't arbitrary, it was set at the current level based on a large-scale study which showed the point at which BAC began to increase accident involvement above the small reduction in involvement from low BAC - i.e. worthy of legislation. Below that level is the realm of pointless totalitarian control freakery.
Totalitarians have been trying to fudge away the slight reduction in accident involvement from low BAC ever since the study was published. This is the kind of thing that happens when dogma is allowed to defeat evidence, or at least, make an attempt.
For sure those with strong views on BAC will know all about the study to which I refer.
turbobloke said:
Not a hint at a zero BAC limit, surely?! That would be silly and offer no safety benefits.
We'd need to know about and stay away from some:
Foods.
Mouthwashes.
Holy Communion wine (though some are non-alcoholic).
Medicines.
The current BAC limit (England at least) isn't arbitrary, it was set at the current level based on a large-scale study which showed the point at which BAC began to increase accident involvement above the small reduction in involvement from low BAC - i.e. worthy of legislation. Below that level is the realm of pointless totalitarian control freakery.
Totalitarians have been trying to fudge away the slight reduction in accident involvement from low BAC ever since the study was published. This is the kind of thing that happens when dogma is allowed to defeat evidence, or at least, make an attempt.
For sure those with strong views on BAC will know all about the study to which I refer.
I don't read that he suggested a 0 limit which as you point out is unenforceable. I think he just suggested don't actively consume alcoholic drinks and drive. A nuance but an important one.We'd need to know about and stay away from some:
Foods.
Mouthwashes.
Holy Communion wine (though some are non-alcoholic).
Medicines.
The current BAC limit (England at least) isn't arbitrary, it was set at the current level based on a large-scale study which showed the point at which BAC began to increase accident involvement above the small reduction in involvement from low BAC - i.e. worthy of legislation. Below that level is the realm of pointless totalitarian control freakery.
Totalitarians have been trying to fudge away the slight reduction in accident involvement from low BAC ever since the study was published. This is the kind of thing that happens when dogma is allowed to defeat evidence, or at least, make an attempt.
For sure those with strong views on BAC will know all about the study to which I refer.
Well thats amazing, hope it gets sorted, soon. Reading this made me go and check my own licence out of interest regarding the L number. I knew that some time in the future I would need to renew my licence. Bloody Hell! Just noticed that my present one runs out next month. Don't know if the DVLA actually notify you or not? I am not taking any chances and will be looking to update ASAP. This existing licence was for 10 years, having had to change it due to moving house. What got me was the fact that back in 2003 I got 3 points & £60(I think) fine for speeding, when I came to update the address in 2007 the DVLA wanted an extra £19 to remove the penalty notice from the paper copy! Talk about trying it on. You just cannot win.
About a month ago the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman issued an official report stating that the DVLA was 'Not fit for purpose' they are prepared to take on further cases against the DVLA, however in this case it seems the DVLA are acting on information received from the court. IF YOU are a member of the RAC RING THEIR LEGAL DEPT Found them very helpful with advice on my problem where DVLA have forged my medical records.
barncooseboy said:
About a month ago the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman issued an official report stating that the DVLA was 'Not fit for purpose' they are prepared to take on further cases against the DVLA, however in this case it seems the DVLA are acting on information received from the court. IF YOU are a member of the RAC RING THEIR LEGAL DEPT Found them very helpful with advice on my problem where DVLA have forged my medical records.
Christ, why don't some people read the f
king thread properly! 
The information the court sent to DVLA would have included the drivers name, date of birth, offence and sentence. They would also have sent the address of the real accused in the case. The court DID NOT have the OP's address. The only way the OP's address could have been entered and a disqualification recorded against him is that someone at DVLA fked up entering the data.It's not f
king rocket science! I admit I haven't read 18 pages of peoples opinion, I was just putting out there a body that can HELP SORT IT the P and H Ombudsman (accessed through your local MP\) has discovered DVLA forging peoples medical records to justify disqualifications and has ordered DVLA to pay substantial compensation of £30k to affected drivers Its overall opinion was that the DVLA is not fit for purpose A damning opinion surely.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff