Points

[Gooby]

Do points start from conviction or offence?

[flemke]

Gooby said:

Do points start from conviction or offence?

A hundred people will come along to correct me, but I believe that if you accept a FPN the count starts at the date of the offence, but if you go to court the count starts at the date of conviction.

[vonhosen]

Gooby said:

Do points start from conviction or offence?

Depends.

[Gemsbok1000]

vonhosen said:

Gooby said:

Do points start from conviction or offence?

Depends.

Well at least that's that cleared up then.

[Gooby]

flemke said:

Gooby said:

Do points start from conviction or offence?

A hundred people will come along to correct me, but I believe that if you accept a FPN the count starts at the date of the offence, but if you go to court the count starts at the date of conviction.

Thanks Flemke.

[SS2.]

Gooby said:

Do points start from conviction or offence?

It depends upon the nature of the offence.

For instance, endorsement will commence from the date of conviction for causing death by careless driving, reckless / dangerous driving, drink / drugs related driving offences, etc..

In almost all other cases, endorsement commences from the date of offence.

Whether an offence is dealt with by fixed penalty or requires a court appearance has no bearing on when the endorsement is deemed to have 'commenced'..

[flemke]

SS2. said:

For instance, endorsement will commence from the date of conviction for causing death by careless driving, reckless / dangerous driving, drink / drugs related driving offences, etc..

In almost all other cases, endorsement commences from the date of offence...

You will know more about this stuff than I, but I recently (and succesfully) challenged a simple speeding allegation (51 in 40). After some bureaucratic rigamarole, the court date was set for ten months after the alleged offence. I was categorically told by my solicitor that, if convicted, the points would commence from the date of conviction.

This seems to be inconsistent with your observation. Any idea why?

[SS2.]

flemke said:

After some bureaucratic rigamarole, the court date was set for ten months after the alleged offence. I was categorically told by my solicitor that, if convicted, the points would commence from the date of conviction.

Solicitors..

flemke said:

This seems to be inconsistent with your observation. Any idea why?

Not really, no. But the DVLA website provides as good a summary as any - DVLA guide to endorsements

Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 20th February 11:42

[flemke]

SS2. said:

flemke said:

After some bureaucratic rigamarole, the court date was set for ten months after the alleged offence. I was categorically told by my solicitor that, if convicted, the points would commence from the date of conviction.

Solicitors..

Maybe so, but this chap is a full-time motoring solicitor who has won a number of well-known, precedent-setting cases (not NF), so he's not likely to be clueless about this question.

SS2 said:

flemke said:

This seems to be inconsistent with your observation. Any idea why?

Not really, no. But the DVLA website provides as good a summary as any - DVLA guide to endorsements

If what you're saying is correct, then I would have waited ten months before the proposed trial, then if I had tried I probably could have delayed the trial for another six months, so that if ultimately I had been convicted 16 months after the offence, the points would only be in effect for 20 months.
If that is so, great, but it doesn't seem logical.

[SS2.]

flemke said:

If what you're saying is correct, then I would have waited ten months before the proposed trial, then if I had tried I probably could have delayed the trial for another six months, so that if ultimately I had been convicted 16 months after the offence, the points would only be in effect for 20 months.
If that is so, great, but it doesn't seem logical.

Logical or otherwise, that's the rules (as I understand them) for the purposes of 'totting'.

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 said:

29. Penalty points to be taken into account on conviction.

(2) If any of the offences was committed more than three years before another, the penalty points in respect of that offence shall not be added to those in respect of the other.

flemke said:

SS2. said:

flemke said:

After some bureaucratic rigamarole, the court date was set for ten months after the alleged offence. I was categorically told by my solicitor that, if convicted, the points would commence from the date of conviction.

Solicitors..

Maybe so, but this chap is a full-time motoring solicitor who has won a number of well-known, precedent-setting cases (not NF), so he's not likely to be clueless about this question.

Far be it from me to disagree with a renowned motoring solicitor, but I maintain that your points would have been deemed valid from the date of offence (not conviction), even if they had been awarded more than a year after commission of the offence.

Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 20th February 13:53

[RtdRacer]

SS2. said:

Far be it from me to disagree with a renowned motoring solicitor, but I maintain that your points would have been deemed valid from the date of offence (not conviction), even if they had been awarded more than a year after commission of the offence.

Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 20th February 13:53

I have to agree. We had a totting case in the other day that took some time (an extra 5 minutes) to resolve because the points on her licence/DVLA printout were in chronological order for convictions, but not in chronological order for the offence. Her most recent conviction was for an offence 7 months previously, whereas she'd had a FPN 2 months before. We were trying to see if at any point she'd crossed the totting threshold for her most recent offence (5 months before). She hadn't, lucky woman.

We smiled at her, relieved her of £60 and hinted that she really was in danger of a totting ban if she did anything in the next 2 years and 2 months.

[flemke]

If that's the way it is, that's the way it is. I'll contact the sol and ask him how sure he was.

It does seem odd that an offence that requires a magistrate's ruling gets the full whack of duration, whilst an offence that the accused disputes and takes to the magistrate gets a discounted duration.

Would sir prefer to have his points for two years, or three?
It's a major incentive to dispute a charge.