Free Traffic Legal Advice

Just been watching a documentary about the Port of Dover.

Police stopped an HGV driver for using a mobile phone as he was driving down the ramp off a ferry. They took a £200 penalty from him there and then (by card), His card failed and they actually clamped his vehicle (to concentrate his mind) before securing payment via a different card.

The police procedure seemed very odd – they appeared to give the driver no choice but to pay, but of course that may have been edited out. But the mobile phone legislation only applies on a road. Any views on whether the ferry ramp is a road?

The scene:

Driver unfortunately comes off the road and ends in a ditch. A passing police vehicle investigates.

The driver is OK but the car obviously needs a tow out.

The police ask for her documents and she produces her insurance certificate, provisional licence and pass certificate showing she passed her test twelve months previously (she has two years to exchange her licence for a full one).

The officer attending is happy but for some reason he reports back to his sergeant for advice. A DVLA check is undertaken and it shows, unsurprisingly, that the driver holds only a provisional licence.

The officer at the scene is still content she was driving legally, but the sergeant insists the vehicle is seized under s165A as (he says)  she was driving otherwise than in accordance with her licence.

The vehicle is formally seized and she is told to produce a full licence at the nick within seven days.

This has a satisfactory ending because a day or two later she visits the nick, explains her situation and the car is released. What are your views on the seizure?

I’ve been having a debate “elsewhere” about RTA s88 (which allows a driver to continue to drive whilst his licence application is being processed).

In September ’23 a 79 year old driver made an application to renew his licence. He declared (simply) that he suffered from Sleep Apnoea (SA). This was the first time he had disclosed this condition. This resulted in a lot of follow up between the DVLA and his doctor, however his Doctor informed him he was not aware of any medical reason why he should not drive, so he continued to do so, relying on s88.

The DVLA wrote to him in December 2023 to advise that they have been informed of another potential medical condition and asked him to provide details within 14 days or his licence may be revoked. He replied with the information and within 6 weeks (Feb ’24) his new licence was issued (the second condition was not current, and is not affecting him now)

He was stopped for speeding during this time (in December). As well as he speeding, the police charged him under s87 and he now has a summons (may be a SJPN, but no matter) to answer those two charges. 

Section 88 says (among other things) that “…a qualifying application by the driver for the grant of a licence to drive vehicles of that class for a period which includes that time [must have] been received by the Secretary of State,”

It also says that “an application is a qualifying application if the declaration made in pursuance of section 92(1) of this Act indicates that he is not suffering from a relevant disability.

There is no doubt that SA is a relevant disability as far as this goes. Looking at the DVLA guidance, it seems there are varying degrees of the condition, some which would lead to the DVLA revoking or refusing a licence and others which wouldn’t. This driver’s contention is that because he had consulted his doctor (after he had submitted his application) who said there was no reason why he should not drive, he can take advantage of s88. My guess is that because he submitted an application declaring a “relevant condition” he is not entitled to take advantage of s88 and must wait for the DVLA to make their decision.

He received his licence about six weeks after he was stopped by the police.

Any thoughts?