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?
Unlawful due to no reasonable grounds to believe the vehicle was being driven unlawfully. Also, no failure to produce a licence.
Thanks, sp.
I arrived at the same conclusion.
on the up side she got free recovery from the ditch.
was she inconvenienced? maybe a letter to the CC incoming them of the questionable actions of the Sargent.
Insurance must be updated to full licence. I assume that was done.
No she wasn't inconvenienced and will not be making a complaint.
I was participating in a thread elsewhere concerning this. I came in partway through and nobody had raised the possibility of an unlawful seizure. I suggested it was because for a seizure to be lawful under s165A the driver must firstly fail to produce his licence and then - and only then - the police must have reasonable grounds for believing that he was driving in contravention of section 87(1).
This driver produced her licence plus pass certificate, so the matter should have ended there.
There were arguments that the police might have doubted the veracity of her pass certificate, they may have been suspicious because it was a year old but the most popular argument in favour of the police was that they had "reasonable grounds" because (unsurprisingly) the DVLA only showed her as a provisional licence holder.
I argued (ultimately successfully) that this situation could apply to anybody who had not yet exchanged their licence for a full one and the stance taken by the police (the sergeant back at the nick rather than the officer at the scene) was ludicrous when they had evidence in front of them that the driver was driving legally. There was also the usual confusion between being licenced (i.e. having he entitlement) to drive and physically holding a valid licence.
Thanks for your contributions.
It must be an unusual situation to have to apply for a full licence, In the past couple of years I have spent many hours in the passenger seat accompanying two learner drivers. When they subsequently passed the driving test the DVLA automatically sent them their full licences which arrived within 7-10 days of the test.
It must be an unusual situation to have to apply for a full licence, In the past couple of years I have spent many hours in the passenger seat accompanying two learner drivers. When they subsequently passed the driving test the DVLA automatically sent them their full licences which arrived within 7-10 days of the test.
It's not automatic. The examiner asks whether you want that, and if so you must give him your provisional.
It's not automatic. The examiner asks whether you want that, and if so you must give him your provisional.
Yes that's correct.
The young lady in my tale declined to do that because she needed it in connection with her work very shortly after her test. She knew she had two years to make the swap and simply left it for a while.
I'm surprised you get two years before you have to apply for a full licence. Does this really mean you can drive for two years with just a pass certificate provided you told your insurer you passed? What happens with penalty points and probation?
Yes it does mean that.
It has no influence on penalty points or the probationary period for new drivers. That begins on the date on which the test is passed.
It must be an unusual situation to have to apply for a full licence, In the past couple of years I have spent many hours in the passenger seat accompanying two learner drivers. When they subsequently passed the driving test the DVLA automatically sent them their full licences which arrived within 7-10 days of the test.
It's not automatic. The examiner asks whether you want that, and if so you must give him your provisional.
Ah! I hadn't realised the actual procedure & have just had my wife confirm that she had the option of keeping her provisional licence. I imagine that the vast majority must opt to have their full licence posted on to them.
People clearly have different priorities over what is important to them. When I passed my test (decades ago) I applied for my full licence immediately. At 17 years old, it indicated a passport to independence (even if I had to borrow the parents' car to exercise that independence
).
Me too, Slithy.
However, back then your provisional (a little piece of paper stuck inside your little red book) lasted only six months. When it expired you had to either send it away for renewal or take it to the local driving licence office. In my case this was Black Prince Road in Vauxhall, London. You queued up, handed them your licence and ten bob (or whatever it was) and waited while they typed out you new licence.
I also seem to recall that your "pink slip" (which you were given on passing your test) only lasted until the expiry of your provisional (so 6 months maximum).
I'd like to hear how this pans out.