Provisional License - Caught Driving Unsupervised

Provisional License - Caught Driving Unsupervised

Author
Discussion

tonytonitone

Original Poster:

3,468 posts

251 months

Friday 27th May 2005
quotequote all
A friend who is just about to take her test has been caught driving unsupervised and therefore was not insured. (stupid I know)

She will get 6-8 points when she is in court.

She is wondering whether to take her test before or after she gets the points and if it makes any difference?

I personally think she is going to have to take her test twice whatever happens because your license gets revoked if you have 6 or more points in your first two years?

She has the old style provisional if that makes any difference.

Any advice comments??

pdV6

16,442 posts

263 months

Friday 27th May 2005
quotequote all
Only the usual and would probably fall foul of the swear filter...

WildCat

8,369 posts

245 months

Friday 27th May 2005
quotequote all
May not have remembered this story exactly - but I do remember reading about it.

17 year old lad found himself in similar situation - he took his test und passed it... und magistrates cancelled his licence 30 minutes later . If I remember the news paper story (und if ist accurate from report und my memory) - he went back to provisional und had to take both parts again.

Think you get the new licence mit the points as well which stay for three years - plus one for bad luck - so ist case of being very, very, very carefuls if in this situations....

guizer

49 posts

231 months

Friday 27th May 2005
quotequote all
Couple of ways to deal.

1) Either sit and pass test and await probable revocation under the New Driver Scheme.
2) Stay as you are, sit out the ban/revocation, sit test when ban/whatever is up and therefore only sit test the once. (apart from having to redo the theory test, possibly)

With 1), you introduce a mitigation that you are a competent driver (look, I've just sat and passed my test!!) which may reduce the fine, but don't hold out too much hope.

With 2), the opposite applies, I suppose, but may be the easier in the longer run

Mrs Fish

30,018 posts

260 months

Friday 27th May 2005
quotequote all
That was a bit silly

Has she tried ringing the DVLA to see what her options are? Doesn't seem much point in taking the test if she is going to get it revoked straight away anyway.

Don

28,377 posts

286 months

Friday 27th May 2005
quotequote all
tonytonitone said:

I personally think she is going to have to take her test twice whatever happens because your license gets revoked if you have 6 or more points in your first two years?


I think you're right. And that she should take her test twice.

Yep - pass the thing a.s.a.p. - as mitigation. Apply for a second test the moment the court case is over...

richardthestag

1,406 posts

235 months

Friday 27th May 2005
quotequote all
Dappy Mare !!

thank the Lord she didn't crash / injure anyone.

Lets hope the beak doesn't come down too hard on her, I am guessing stupidity rather than mitigating circumstance..

Hopefully a valuable lesson has been learn't. Good luck to her.

Dwight VanDriver

6,583 posts

246 months

Friday 27th May 2005
quotequote all
If it was her car and she has Insurance then check the Certificate and it will state in relation to covered driver " providing holds or has held a Driving Licence and is not disqualified from driving". Fairly standard so I am pretty sure it will be there. So she will be covered by Insurance as she hold a Licence - a provisional.

Even if it is someone elses car the above may well apply in relation to their Insurance for any other driver.

How many breaches? No 'L' plates displayed. Driving unaccompanied by a qualified driver. Used to be two offences but now one under Section 87(1)1 Road Traffic Act 1988 - driving otherwise than in accordance with a Licence. Fine up to 1000 pounds, discretionary disqualification and points 3 to 6.

If she passes her test and Mags award the full whack of 6 points then Newly Qualified Driver Rules kick in and Licence will be revoked until such time as she passes a test. i.e. reverts to the staus of learner.

So maybe she should consider not taking her test until such time as charges have been dealt with and then take the test.

DVD

>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Friday 27th May 16:36

guizer

49 posts

231 months

Friday 27th May 2005
quotequote all
DVD - agree with you, but a point to consider?

If she failed to advise Ins Co that she held a provisional or falsely told them it was a full licence, then that is a material (non)disclosure and strong probability that Ins Co will cancel insurance and (potentially) return monies paid. Or hike the premium up by a decimal place or two....

Had a couple like this recently, with paperwork from Police Liason Officer at Ins Co for Court purposes.

mcflurry

9,105 posts

255 months

Friday 27th May 2005
quotequote all
I would try and show that she was insured.

An IN** decoration on her licence will cost bucket loads...

gilbertd

739 posts

244 months

Friday 27th May 2005
quotequote all
Although the law has probably been updated by now, I got done for the same thing quite a few years ago (1971 in fact). It was my car, was insured in my name and had L plates on. I only got done for driving unsupervised, a small fine and an endorsement (equivalent to 3 points). The best bet would be to try to get the no insurance dropped and just go for the unsupervised. Might be possible to do a plea bargain, plead guilty to unsupervised and not guilty to uninsured. If she's lucky, they'll drop the no insurance rather than go to the expense of a full hearing.

Dwight VanDriver

6,583 posts

246 months

Saturday 28th May 2005
quotequote all
guizer said:
DVD - agree with you, but a point to consider?

If she failed to advise Ins Co that she held a provisional or falsely told them it was a full licence, then that is a material (non)disclosure and strong probability that Ins Co will cancel insurance and (potentially) return monies paid. Or hike the premium up by a decimal place or two....

Had a couple like this recently, with paperwork from Police Liason Officer at Ins Co for Court purposes.



In the case Guardian Assurance Co v Sutherland [1939] it was held that a policy obtained by misrepresentation insured no body BUT in:

Goodbarne v Buck [1940]

Durrant v MacLaren [1956]

Adams v Dunn [1978]

All have held that where Insurance was obtained under false and material representation then as far as third party risks are concerned it remains valid until such time as Insurance Company take steps to avoid it.

Maybe more recent case upskittling these rulings but not aware of any.

DVD



>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Saturday 28th May 08:02

jimbro1000

1,619 posts

286 months

Saturday 28th May 2005
quotequote all
It isn't her driving skill that will be questioned in court so taking the test before the date is of no use what so ever.

She will be hung out to dry on the fact that she had no insurance. That will be 6 points straight off and there is no way she can get out of this (unless for some bizarre reason the insurance company states that she was indeed insured regardless). She may receive more points for other offences on the back of this but only the largest single points penalty will apply. Of course under the new driver rules this is all academic and she will be banned and go back to square 1.

destroyer

256 posts

242 months

Saturday 28th May 2005
quotequote all
Perhaps she should ask herself "Why would qualified drivers want to be in the company of someone so wreckless and stupid when she has passed her test and is allowed out alone if this is the way she acts before her test is passed"?
A magistrate or judge will be asking this very question when the punishment is delivered, at least I hope so otherwise what's the point?

WildCat

8,369 posts

245 months

Saturday 28th May 2005
quotequote all
destructive Steviebabes said:
Perhaps she should ask herself "Why would qualified drivers want to be in the company of someone so wreckless


but fortunately, whe did not wreck anything

destructive Steviebabes said:

and stupid when she has passed her test and is allowed out alone if this is the way she acts before her test is passed"?
A magistrate or judge will be asking this very question when the punishment is delivered, at least I hope so otherwise what's the point?


But the minute they pass - they can go buy fastest car und drive on motorway without supervision.... ist a bit daft really.

She was very silly to go out without a teacher - und would never ever condone.... she will have to get decent solicitor to argue it out for her - und I still think she would be best to sit test, pass und then retake it very quickly. Ist unfortunate that her premium will be high before she has chance to get the experiences und the no-claims - but perhaps she can get around mit a third party quote und lot of shopping around. Ist a price of extreme silliness....

But magisrtate may consider how long she has been learning und failed test records und testimonials from driving instructor into accounts as well when making decisions on this one. One hopes so - to reach fairest decisions.

For record - we did not allow eldest on motorway after passing his test until we had driven on one with him. He has Pass Plus und will do his IAM when he has more experiences.

But Steviebabes - moments of such silliness do not make permanently unsafe. She will learn from this ...

funkihamsta

1,261 posts

265 months

Monday 30th May 2005
quotequote all
WildCat said:

But Steviebabes - moments of such silliness do not make permanently unsafe. She will learn from this ...


And the best way she will learn is to face the consequences for her actions. Which in this case is 6 pts and a fine.

This will likely cure her penchant for moments of silliness quite effectively.

busa_rush

6,930 posts

253 months

Monday 30th May 2005
quotequote all
funkihamsta said:

And the best way she will learn is to face the consequences for her actions. Which in this case is 6 pts and a fine.

This will likely cure her penchant for moments of silliness quite effectively.


I don't think that's the case, why make it even harder for somebody to get legal because of one silly mistake. If I had been caught and fined/points for every mistake I'd made in my early driving career then I'd still be driving illegally now, would have given up on Insurance etc.

I really do think that if somebody owns up to a silly mistake, is honest about it and shows some understanding of what they have done then if it's first offence, a slap on the wrist is sufficient.

TripleS

4,294 posts

244 months

Monday 30th May 2005
quotequote all
destroyer said:
Perhaps she should ask herself "Why would qualified drivers want to be in the company of someone so wreckless...


Perhaps we should be thankful that her little jaunt remained wreckless - at least it appears to have been.

It's bad enough that she was reckless enough to pull such a silly stunt anyhow.

Best wishes all,
Dave - in smartass mode.

tonytonitone

Original Poster:

3,468 posts

251 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
TripleS said:
Perhaps we should be thankful that her little jaunt remained wreckless - at least it appears to have been.


No one was harmed.. Thanks for all the comments I have passed them ALL on..

Cheers.