Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: adders on March 17, 2025, 10:48:27 am
-
The car park was quiet, although not deserted, and it was not part of a big big car meet etc, although the carpark is known for that and hence probably why the police was about.
No doubt the police will comment in their statement that the car park is known as a big car meet, which is a polite way of putting boy racers meet.
-
A good result, I suspect had it been actually on a "proper" road the penalty may have been different.
-
For totting up purposes, it is the date of offence that matters (albeit that there are no points to count towards totting up).
For being bent over by insurance companies - it has to be declared for X years from date of conviction.
N.B. Different insurers variously want to know about claims and convictions in the last 3 or 5 years.
-
PS. The court should have made him aware that although his licence has not been revoked under he New Drivers' legislation, he will still have to apply for a new one when his ban finishes, but this will be a full licence. His old one has been revoked because his ban for was 56 days.
They did explain that thank you. HIs insurance was always going to be an issue regardless of the outcome and so he is prepared. On the bright side, he is 6 months down the road from the offence already.
-
Yes, thanks for the update.
I must say I am surprised. A a disqualification when points are available which would see revocation is clearly contrary to the Magistrates' guidance.
I usually suggest that such an outcome is unlikely. I'll modify my suggestions in future, but I must say it is unusual. Anyway, probably a good outcome for him. Whether he will still be saying that when he finds out the insurance implications is perhaps not so certain! >:(
Thanks again for he feedback. As you can see, it does help.
PS. The court should have made him aware that although his licence has not been revoked under he New Drivers' legislation, he will still have to apply for a new one when his ban finishes, but this will be a full licence. His old one has been revoked because his ban for was 56 days.
-
Thanks for the update.
I think that is a good result for his circumstances.
-
An update.
We opted for court and after dragging out the replies and then getting it moved to our local magistrates my son was up this morning. 56 day ban, which all things considered is a good result and one we are happy with.
-
I would have thought getting it done and dusted ASAP so he can put in for his test again prior to going to Uni would make more sense. Although 6 months might be tight for getting theory and practical done. There is an app apparently to apply for test cancellations that gives you access to multiple regions.
-
As per the link above, were the retail premises open? was the cinema open? Is it a genuinely shared carpark or are certain sections reserved or separated?
Case law says a pub car park is a public place when the pub is open, and not a public place when the pub is closed.
Are there any signs up governing the use of the car park?
Just to manage expectations, your son should explore all options, but expect to be embracing bus travel.
Just one last thought, a not guilty plea will push out the date when he loses his licence/ has it revoked. It might be worth a not guilty plea just for that purpose.
-
As a rule of thumb (but not entirely foolproof) if anybody can drive into it without the need for permission, a pass, or for any gates or barriers to be opened that would only be done for authorised people, it is a public place. The place you describe seems as though it probably fits the bill.
-
A cinema car park shared with a retail park.
-
Scroll down on this page for "places that are not public places" https://thedrivingsolicitor.co.uk/2019/03/11/road-or-other-public-place-where-do-driving-laws-apply/
Where exactly was the car park and what business is it associated with?
-
Well his insurance is already stupidly high and so moving forward whatever the outcomes he is going to struggle for years now. Currently in full time education completing a levels prior to moving onto university. Though that might be changed by this as he was planning on a commutable university that he already has his offer for.
Job wise he does part time work in the service industry, also in a place that is in the sticks and 30 mins drive, so that will have to change.
I have reached out to a couple of motoring lawyers and waiting on replies. Slim as the chances seem it increasingly feels like it is worth a go.
-
I feel for your son. It’s nothing lots of us haven’t done,
I think there are 2 very slim chances that have been suggested. Both maybe complete long shots but is the possible upside worth the extra risk?
What are 6 points going to do to his future insurance premiums? Will he even be able to get insurance? Does the type of policy he has allow the insurers to jack up the premium mid policy year for offences and not just poor driving? If taking a fixed penalty effectively takes him off the road for several years does rolling the dice seem worthwhile?
What is his income? How much more will a guilty plea fine be vs the fixed penalty? This is the amount he is gambling on a SRNTE plea working.
How much would the not guilty plea fine be if the “it wasn’t public” defence failed?
-
Not sure he sees any bright side at the moment. It’s quite a punishment for a minutes madness, but is what it is.
-
Also, looking on the bright(ish) side, revocation doesn't have to stop him driving.
He can apply immediately for a new provisional licence.
-
If it is any consolation it could be worse as each of them was not only driving with no insurance, but also permitted the other to drive their car without insurance, so there was potential for 12 points each and therefore a 6 months totting disqualification.
-
...but it sounds an expensive gamble with odds against.
The SRNTE is only valid with a guilty plea so costs aren't so bad. But the odds are against him as there was no necessity to 'test drive' another car.
Obviously accepting a fixed penalty is instant 'game over'.
-
Thank you for the replies.
It's a fine mess he has landed himself in for sure, well both of them for that matter. Special reasons might be a route, but it sounds an expensive gamble with odds against. It was a short distance and it had ended as they were approached. They had both pulled into parking spaces and were not technically pulled over or stopped by the police.
-
As far as court options go, the court cannot impose fewer than six points. That is the minimum mandated by the statute. The alternative sentence (a short ban) is unlikely to be successful. Whilst the Magistrates’ guidance suggests that the effect of any revocation should be considered, it only points out that fewer points or a ban will avoid that consequence. However, It goes on to say:
“An offender liable for an endorsement which will cause the licence to be revoked under the new drivers’ provisions may ask the court to disqualify rather than impose points. This will avoid the requirement to take a further test. Generally, this would be inappropriate since it would circumvent the clear intention of Parliament.”
There is no doubt that the offence would not otherwise warrant a ban to be considered and I would expect the court to follow the above guidance.
As above, the only grounds for a “Special Reasons” argument to be made would be on the basis of a short distance driven. I don’t expect that to succeed. From your description it is not clear whether the episode would have continued had he not been stopped and in any case, there was absolutely no reason for it to have taken place in the first place.
I think he must plan for revocation.
-
I can see two possible approaches, neither of which are very hopeful:
1. Pleading guilty and arguing for special reasons not to endorse on the basis of the shortness of distance driven, is viable but it might be difficult to show that there was no intention to drive further since the purpose of driving was to try out the cars.
2. Depending on the circumstances of the car park, can the prosecution show that it is a public place? For the offence it must take place on a road or public place, it has been established that a car park is not a road, but if it is open to the public generally it is probably a public place.
-
Thank you. Yes I have checked the insurance on the off chance and neither is covered.
-
It would be unusual for insurers to provide DOV cover - but just to be 100% sure this has been checked? (It usually doesn't apply to young drivers).
The insurer will need to be advised at some point.
In terms of sentencing, the court is unlikely to circumvent the New Drivers Act to avoid revocation. The only long shot would be a guilty with a Special Reasons Not To Endorse plea. (Perhaps on the basis it was short distance)
-
I have not needed to post on here since Pepipoo days, but sadly find myself here again and hope you guys can help.
Firstly, this is not for me, its for my son. I know not ideal, but I have good and honest relationship with him and so am trying to help him out of the pickle he has got himself into with the least amount of pain.
So on to the the the tail of woe. He is a new driver of less than 2 years and is in possession of a COFP from the police for driving without insurance. He was stopped by a marked police car while driving a friends car in a car park. His friend has received the same for driving my son’s car. Stupid I know, but in his young mind he genuinely thought in a carpark he was ok. Now it sounds bad, I know, and I went straight to the same place as you probably, but having seen the dashcam footage from his car it is not the teenage car meet I was expecting. It is literally him and his friend driving in a straight line for 42 seconds at a max speed of 26mph to try each others cars. The car park was quiet, although not deserted, and it was not part of a big big car meet etc, although the carpark is known for that and hence probably why the police was about.
Both he and his friend hold full black box insurance for their respective cars. At a cost of ~2k per year i might add and both are 'gold' drivers according to their apps.
To cut to the chase. He is guilty for sure and although harsh in my humble opinion he has to face the consequences. The question is what to do? If he accepts the COFP he is revoked almost immediately and probably off the road for 6+ months while he waits for a slot for theory and an even longer wait for a test date. What are the court options? Ignorance is not a defence, but could he go to court, plead guilty and ask for a different punishment? Reduced points or a ban? If doing the court route he would need legal help i am sure and so any recommendations of specialist motoring lawyers from your experiences?
Its a mess and of his own doing, but as his old man i want to help if i can. Your expertise and advice would be gratefully received.