View Full Version : Driving ban question
blackthorn
11-04-2009, 08:34
I`ve tried googling for an answer to this but I`ve not had much success so I`m hoping someone on here might be able to clarify this for me.
One of my staff at work was off the other day and when he returned to work he told me that 2 days previously he was followed from the local supermarket to his house by the police. He said, that they followed him because he failed to use an indicator at some junction. When they got to his house, they could smell alcohol and breathalysed him, which he failed. (This is what he is telling me btw). I asked him what happened next, he said the police took his car away to the compound. I asked him if he was arrested and he said no because he fully admited to drinking and driving. ( I find that a bit weird ). He appeared in court the next day where he tells me that he has been given a 18month driving ban.
Right I have a couple of problems with this guy now. We all work at an outdoor shopping centre, which is private property. Part of his job is driving a mini road sweeper and a small mule which tows a jetwash. None of these vehicles have license plates or road tax (not needed). He tells me that the police said he was ok to carry on driving these on our site but I am not so sure. My main worry is, that he sweeps the carparks, where the public have access. So what I am asking is, what are the laws on this situation ?
Also, if anyone can tell me if it is normal procedure to take someones car away when stopped for drink driving. I would understand them taking it away if say he was stopped on a road miles from his house but he was at his own house when they done him.
Its does seem strange, they normally arrest the person and take them to station to test them again on the breathalyzer to get a more accurate reading of how much they where over the limit.
Sometimes when you get caught, you then tend to embellish the story, I feel he may be making up things.
Set some one else on the job that he does, and give him another task.
Ring the police for clarification on if he is legally allowed to do stuff in the car park.
Although he may still be able to drive on private property despite a ban I'd be concerned about your Insurance situation.
If the person concerned managed to injure a member of the public or damage a vehicle the fact that he is a convicted drink-driver would probably not go down well with your insurers.
Raistlin
11-04-2009, 09:31
Agreed, you need to check with your insurers that they will still provide cover in the event that he has an accident.
They don't drive the car away to a compound, they do take you to the police station for another breath test on the big machine.
If he's stupid enough to drive on a public road drunk then what does he do at work??? :( Surely as well your public liability insurance for that vehicle would need to know of the conviction especially as he's driving in an area accessable by the public..
Millbrook (GM testing) still requires you to have a licence if you're working in thier testing facility even though you're on totally private ground..
I asked him what happened next, he said the police took his car away to the compound.
Possible but very strange if it was parked OK. If he didn't have a full license or no insurance they would have lifted it.
I asked him if he was arrested and he said no because he fully admited to drinking and driving. ( I find that a bit weird ). He appeared in court the next day where he tells me that he has been given a 18month driving ban.
If he failed the roadside breath test he *would* have been arrested. Taken to the office, given a further evidential sample of breath/blood/urine and then charged. After that he might have been kept in until court where an 18 month ban is entirely possible depending of previous convictions and the level of alcohol in his system.
Right I have a couple of problems with this guy now. We all work at an outdoor shopping centre, which is private property. Part of his job is driving a mini road sweeper and a small mule which tows a jetwash. None of these vehicles have license plates or road tax (not needed). He tells me that the police said he was ok to carry on driving these on our site but I am not so sure. My main worry is, that he sweeps the carparks, where the public have access.
Hmmm, this is where it gets a bit messy. If the public have access to the area then its classed as a road and he can't drive a car there when he is disqualified. If the vehicles are not classed as cars and do not require a license to drive them then he should be OK but if a license is required to operate them his is currently revoked.
I'd get the advice of a specialist traffic law lawyer as I wouldn't want to take the risk of getting chopped for causing and permitting someone to drive without license/insurance etc.
They don't drive the car away to a compound, they do take you to the police station for another breath test on the big machine.
Yeah I wondered about this one... Even if he said he was guilty they would have still got the two evidenciary breath test readings from a calibrated machine at the police stattion as upto the court hearing he could always change his plea... As for the car even if he parked it in his driveway any insurance/DD/tax/MOT offence these days means they can take the car...
Yeah I wondered about this one... Even if he said he was guilty they would have still got the two evidenciary breath test readings from a calibrated machine at the police stattion as upto the court hearing he could always change his plea...
There is talk of the roadside machines being accepted as evidential samples (at least up here in Scotland) as they are pretty accurate these days. Far better than the old crystals in a bag. As far as I know that is still at the discussion stage and everyone over at the roadside is carted off for a go on the intoximeter.
WHISTLED
11-04-2009, 10:06
Having some oexperience (from mate I should add)..
This is what would have had to happen..
Pulled over and failed breath test,
Arrested and taken to the police station, second breath test failed
Charged with being under the influence and bailed to appear before magistrates at a later date (unlikely next day by appointment?!)
Appears before magistrates given points and a 12 month+ ban
Cars would not be impounded if it was at him home as stated unless he was driving without insurance etc.
I suspect this chap may already banned for something and has been caught driving, the police often go to see if a banned driver is driving.
Regarding the sweepersm etc, I dont believe they would require a driving license to operate, they would be covered in standard liability insurance, however it may be in his contract that he needs a driving license
Would you appear in court the next day?
Surely it would take far longer, plus you would be arrested on the spot, like has just been done on the cop documentry on TV.
WHISTLED
11-04-2009, 10:08
Took me so long to write Derek posted
Would you appear in court the next day?
Not sure about England/Wales but in Scotland the options when charged with something are:
Released and a report sent to the PF. You will then be summoned to appear at Court
Released and given a specific day to appear at Court (normally 14-21 days away)
Held in custody until the next court sitting
It all depends of the offence and previous record of the accused. Normally the 2nd option is taking for drunk driving but if the reading is exceptionally high, the driver has previous for traffic offences or is disqualified he'll be kept in till the next lawful day.
AndyCambs
11-04-2009, 10:31
One of my staff at work was off the other day and when he returned to work he told me that 2 days previously he was followed from the local supermarket to his house by the police. He said, that they followed him because he failed to use an indicator at some junction. When they got to his house, they could smell alcohol and breathalysed him, which he failed. .
Quite possibly. The road-side test is an indication as to the level of intoxication, but can't be taken as evidence. The intoximeter at the police station will then be used and the suspect gives two samples, both of which are analysed. The lower of the two readings is then used as evidence.
I asked him what happened next, he said the police took his car away to the compound. I asked him if he was arrested and he said no because he fully admited to drinking and driving. ( I find that a bit weird ). He appeared in court the next day where he tells me that he has been given a 18month driving ban.
He'd have to be arrested in order to be detained and taken to the station. The car would only be removed to the compound if there were other circumstances - such as not insured to drive it. This was included I think under section 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. For driving whilst under the influence, then the suspect would be released on bail. Part of the bail conditions are always that you don't re-offend, which means if you are caught a second time driving before you licence is revoked, then you would be refused bail and put straight before the court.
Right I have a couple of problems with this guy now. We all work at an outdoor shopping centre, which is private property. Part of his job is driving a mini road sweeper and a small mule which tows a jetwash. None of these vehicles have license plates or road tax (not needed). He tells me that the police said he was ok to carry on driving these on our site but I am not so sure. My main worry is, that he sweeps the carparks, where the public have access. So what I am asking is, what are the laws on this situation ?
Category K on the driving licence covers "Mowing machine or vehicle controlled by a pedestrian". This includes electrically propelled hand-held rubbish carts. (My local authority fell foul of this some years ago and the cart had to have an L-plate affixed to it.)
If the licence has been revoked by the court - then it will be a complete ban - it's not conditional or partial.
It's also important to note that the police don't ban you. Theoretically, once sober, you can lawfully drive your car until the court seize your licence and revoke it. This is after the court case - which happens even if you plead guilty by post. The penalty for drink driving is an obligatory ban (see here (http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/drink_driving_penalties_punishments.htm)) unless there are some pretty good reasons why a ban should not be imposed. In any case, there would also be points added to the licence which would probably be sufficient to ban under the totting-up procedure.
Also, if anyone can tell me if it is normal procedure to take someones car away when stopped for drink driving. I would understand them taking it away if say he was stopped on a road miles from his house but he was at his own house when they done him.
As above - the only reason a car would be taken away generally,
if there is no insurance for the person to drive the car
if it's been used in the commission of a crime (and seized under the proceeds of crime act)
superbiatch
11-04-2009, 10:38
Having some oexperience (from mate I should add)..
This is what would have had to happen..
Pulled over and failed breath test,
Arrested and taken to the police station, second breath test failed
Charged with being under the influence and bailed to appear before magistrates at a later date (unlikely next day by appointment?!)
Appears before magistrates given points and a 12 month+ ban
I was a witness to a drink driver last January and it still hasn't gone to court, although i think its down to the CPS dragging their feet. I have to go and ID the guy next week at a local police station.
This guy wasn't driving the car when arrested, he'd got himself home but i was so worried about his driving i took it on myself to phone the police and give them his registration. I never expected to hear anything again, how wrong i was! As i'd given them the make/model and reg no, they basically had all the info they needed to go to his house, and when he answered the door the policeman told me he was completed intoxicated. They breathalysed him there and then and performed a few tests on the car to prove it had been used recently, temperature of oil etc.
The guy was Polish and didn't speak very good English and he was 2.5 times over the limit. He was arrested immediately and the police came back to me that night and took thorough statements.
After initially admitting it, he's now gone back and said he hadn't been driving - obviously someone has made him aware the police have to prove he was in the car, which is where i come in. I hope to god i remember his face, but somehow i think it will come flooding back when i see his face as he nearly ran me off the road twice before mounting the kerb :mad:
WHISTLED
11-04-2009, 10:52
I was behind someone on my way to work last week that I suspect was hammered, turned right onto a road from a turning left position, that caused them to mount the kerb and most of the pavement when they got in front of me, then driving at 15-20 MPH which drives me mental!
The best bit was when they decided to overtake a bus on a long corner, but not to accelerate in doing so.. Barely got in front before hitting oncoming cars. My bird was freaking
blackthorn
11-04-2009, 11:39
Ok, thanks for all this info everybody. When our company purchased these vehicles, we did ask if it was necessary for the drivers to have a driveing license. They checked with our insurers who said no they didnt need one. One of companys rules though is all drivers must be over 25 (which he is, so thats ok). Although the insurers said a license wasnt needed, myself and the manager said we would prefer to only use drivers who had a license.All the staff except this one person brought in their licenses for us to copy, he kept telling us he couldnt find it and he was going to get dvlc to send him a replacement.
This is where my suspicions creep in ,that he hasnt got a license, he does (or he did before this happened) drive his own car to work everyday, so nobody was concerned or worried too much about seeing his license because he seemed a capable driver and as I said, the insurers said nobody really needed one.
He defintely had a current mot. I know this because the garage who looks after our other site vehicles, done the mot on his car, ( we get discount on mots and work needed on personal cars :) )
He certainly has insurance because his sister who works for us also, keeps hold of all his documents for him and has (unofficially shown us the insurance document).
Now, after thinking more on this, my thoughts are with this scenario.
His wife, who also happens to work for us, left work at 5pm and got the bus from work to the local supermarket. Got her shopping and then our guy (who was off sick that day, thats why he didnt pick her up from work) picked her up from the supermarket. ( that bit is definitly true, the next is guesswork) A police car who was in the area scanned his number plate (do the police in ordinary cars carry anpr scanners ? ) and got the info that the car was registered to someone who didnt have a license, followed him home and asked for his documents. Would having no license mean taking your car away ?
Does any of this make sense.
(do the police in ordinary cars carry anpr scanners ? ) and got the info that the car was registered to someone who didnt have a license, followed him home and asked for his documents.
Possible. Depending where you live the local force might have more ANPR cars out and about or static sites where the information would ping up. Either that or someone smelt alcohol, saw his driving was a bit erratic and called the Police.
Would having no license mean taking your car away ?
Yep. No license or insurance and your car is removed under Section 165 of the Road Traffic Act.
So he never had a licence before all this which means he basically lied to you?? You don't need to prove you have a licence to insure/MOT/tax a car... Personally I'd get rid of him instantly..and next time if you have a policy of needing a licence then surely someone shouldn't be allowed ina vehicle before they have shown thiers..No excuses as it's your insurance/job/company on the line if something goes wrong
Would having no license mean taking your car away ?
If he has no licence he can't get insurance. so the car he's stopped in can be taken away.
I'd say it was up to you if you still want him to drive for the company.
If he has no licence he can't get insurance. so the car he's stopped in can be taken away.
I'd say it was up to you if you still want him to drive for the company.
They don't ask for your licence details when you apply for insurance only when you make a claim, so you can have apply and pay for insurance but it would be invalid if ever needed, although he could of had insurance for a car he owns while being a provisional licence holder.
They don't ask for your licence details when you apply for insurance only when you make a claim, so you can have apply and pay for insurance but it would be invalid if ever needed, although he could of had insurance for a car he owns while being a provisional licence holder.
But if he's still a provisional and he's the only occupant of the car when stopped?
They don't ask for your licence details when you apply for insurance only when you make a claim, so you can have apply and pay for insurance but it would be invalid if ever needed, although he could of had insurance for a car he owns while being a provisional licence holder.
They do ask for licence details when you apply for car insurance (is your licence full or provisional, and how long have you held the licence).
They do ask for licence details when you apply for car insurance (is your licence full or provisional, and how long have you held the licence).
I think he means that you don't have to show proof, and still get an insurance policy. although it will be invalid anyway.
They do ask for licence details when you apply for car insurance (is your licence full or provisional, and how long have you held the licence).
This really does confuse me...
I've held a full licence for 20 years (motorcycle) yet only passed my car test about 4 years ago...
Yet the car insurance people only ever ask how long I've had a FULL licence for (not a full Catagory B licence)
Which should I answer..20years or 4 year??
Which should I answer..20years or 4 year??
Wouldn't that depend on if you were requesting a quote for a bike or a car?
I would check, but if you are going for Car Insurance, 4 years.
Why then doesn;t the question specify FULL CAR LICENCE...instead it always just asks for FULL LICENCE... which before I passed my car test I held a full licence...
There's no difference between a full car licence and a full motorcycle licence apart from a catagory..
It's just all so confusing ;) Anyway before I drag this more off-topic I've asked in one of the motorcycle forums I belong to as one of the other mods is an insurance journalist :D
Why then doesn;t the question specify FULL CAR LICENCE...instead it always just asks for FULL LICENCE... which before I passed my car test I held a full licence...
I'm sure it says something like how long held for this particular type of vehice. it will probably transpire that they've been undercharging you. so be prepared to get your purse out :)
Why?? I didn't say what I answered? and even if I did answer 20 then I have actually answered truthfully based on the question..
I have though tested it out and answered both and came up with the same premium... but as we own a traders policy that covers use for bikes and cars it is a mute point it's just that as we were talking about licences I just thought I'd ask that question as it's been bugging me for ages ;)
WHISTLED
11-04-2009, 14:11
If you answered 20 in relation to a standard car policy it would invalidate the policy and a claim would almost certainy fail.
AndyCambs
11-04-2009, 22:33
Yep. No license or insurance and your car is removed under Section 165 of the Road Traffic Act.
Being slightly pedantic here, but no licence would mean no insurance - and therefore liable to seizure of the car. No licence per se wouldn't mean seizure of the car.
A condition of the insurance policy is that you hold a licence for the vehicle insured - hence if you have no licence, or an expired licence, disqualified, or provisional licence and are driving without a qualified driver - then you invalidate your insurance and you have no insurance - hence seizure of the vehicle.
---------- Post added at 22:33 ---------- Previous post was at 22:31 ----------
Why then doesn;t the question specify FULL CAR LICENCE...instead it always just asks for FULL LICENCE... which before I passed my car test I held a full licence...
There's no difference between a full car licence and a full motorcycle licence apart from a catagory..
It's just all so confusing ;) Anyway before I drag this more off-topic I've asked in one of the motorcycle forums I belong to as one of the other mods is an insurance journalist :D
I think they mean how long have you held a licence for the class of vehicle which you wish to insure.
I have the reverse problem - a car licence for some 30 yrs which includes moped, but when they ask how long I have been riding a moped, then I have to say truthfully only a couple of years.
There is talk of the roadside machines being accepted as evidential samples (at least up here in Scotland) as they are pretty accurate these days. Far better than the old crystals in a bag. As far as I know that is still at the discussion stage and everyone over at the roadside is carted off for a go on the intoximeter.
These machines only determine whether the suspect is over the legal limit. It does not determine how much.
---------- Post added at 00:42 ---------- Previous post was at 00:36 ----------
They don't ask for your licence details when you apply for insurance only when you make a claim, so you can have apply and pay for insurance but it would be invalid if ever needed, although he could of had insurance for a car he owns while being a provisional licence holder.
Insurance companies do ask and they check with DVLA at the inception of the policy. When they find out you have lied, the insurance is invalidated and you will be reported for fraud. This is a criminal offence and the police are informed.
---------- Post added at 00:47 ---------- Previous post was at 00:42 ----------
Being slightly pedantic here, but no licence would mean no insurance - and therefore liable to seizure of the car. No licence per se wouldn't mean seizure of the car.
A condition of the insurance policy is that you hold a licence for the vehicle insured - hence if you have no licence, or an expired licence, disqualified, or provisional licence and are driving without a qualified driver - then you invalidate your insurance and you have no insurance - hence seizure of the vehicle.
No exactly correct. If the driver has no licence then he would not be insured to drive any vehicle. However, the car itself would still be insured and therfore still be legal to be on the road.
---------- Post added at 00:53 ---------- Previous post was at 00:47 ----------
I`ve tried googling for an answer to this but I`ve not had much success so I`m hoping someone on here might be able to clarify this for me.
One of my staff at work was off the other day and when he returned to work he told me that 2 days previously he was followed from the local supermarket to his house by the police. He said, that they followed him because he failed to use an indicator at some junction. When they got to his house, they could smell alcohol and breathalysed him, which he failed. (This is what he is telling me btw). I asked him what happened next, he said the police took his car away to the compound. I asked him if he was arrested and he said no because he fully admited to drinking and driving. ( I find that a bit weird ). He appeared in court the next day where he tells me that he has been given a 18month driving ban.
Right I have a couple of problems with this guy now. We all work at an outdoor shopping centre, which is private property. Part of his job is driving a mini road sweeper and a small mule which tows a jetwash. None of these vehicles have license plates or road tax (not needed). He tells me that the police said he was ok to carry on driving these on our site but I am not so sure. My main worry is, that he sweeps the carparks, where the public have access. So what I am asking is, what are the laws on this situation ?
Also, if anyone can tell me if it is normal procedure to take someones car away when stopped for drink driving. I would understand them taking it away if say he was stopped on a road miles from his house but he was at his own house when they done him.
From the very inconsistent account of his experiences, I would think that he has some alternative motivation behind this. Could he be swinging the lead? Has he been unhappy with the task of driving this sweeper and thinking that if he told you he had been banned from driving, you will take him off this task?
AndyCambs
18-04-2009, 02:16
No exactly correct. If the driver has no licence then he would not be insured to drive any vehicle. However, the car itself would still be insured and therfore still be legal to be on the road.
If the driver of the vehicle is not insured, then the vehicle will be seized. If I insure my vehicle for me alone, and another person drives that vehicle who is not on my insurance, and who does not hold any other motor insurance, then the vehicle is seized. Section 165 of the Road Traffic Act.
I would have to pay a release fee, plus storage. But a valid certificate of insurance for the person collecting that vehicle must be produced.
The only excuse would be that the car was taken without my permission, in which case the driver is then guilty of taking without consent - or theft of the vehicle as well as any other offences.
A certificate of insurance generally covers only specific people to drive a car - insured only, insured and spouse, insured plus named individuals. It is possible to get any driver - but these are very much more expensive, as the insurance companies are not able to assess the risk to the car.
rogerdraig
18-04-2009, 05:19
i will hazard a guess that the offence occurred a while back and he was hoping it would go better for him in court than it did so he only told you once he got the ban
but hey i am not right every time ;)
if the vehicels you use have no number plates its most likely ok but i would check with your insurers
you can ask see thecourt documents which might clear things up and i would get advice before sacking him
If you are unsure on the situation I believe you can request information from the DVLA.
AndyCambs
18-04-2009, 07:08
I think there are two questions really
1 - is the guy telling the truth about his story (and I think it's not likely to be a complete and whole truthful story).
2 - if there is no driving licence, is the guy ok to drive the company motorised vehicle around the company property. Answer to this, depends entirely on the requirements of the company and the insurance company they use. As it's not on a highway (road or public pavement) then the RTA 1985 doesn't apply. But that doesn't stop caveats from the insurance company requiring people to have licences, or for the company to insist on it. Simplest way around it is to ask all people who do this job to present their current licence for insurance purposes on a regular annual basis.
These machines only determine whether the suspect is over the legal limit. It does not determine how much.
The ones in use with a number of UK Police forces display the alcohol reading and not just a PASS/FAIL.
There are discussions ongoing to accept the evidence of these machines in court for prosecution purposes.
Update ?
Has the truth come out yet?
Charlie_Bubble
18-04-2009, 18:31
i will hazard a guess that the offence occurred a while back and he was hoping it would go better for him in court than it did so he only told you once he got the ban
but hey i am not right every time ;)
if the vehicels you use have no number plates its most likely ok but i would check with your insurers
you can ask see thecourt documents which might clear things up and i would get advice before sacking him
I think you could be close to the truth. I certainly don't think the guy is telling the whole story.
superbiatch
20-04-2009, 08:58
I was a witness to a drink driver last January and it still hasn't gone to court, although i think its down to the CPS dragging their feet. I have to go and ID the guy next week at a local police station.
This guy wasn't driving the car when arrested, he'd got himself home but i was so worried about his driving i took it on myself to phone the police and give them his registration. I never expected to hear anything again, how wrong i was! As i'd given them the make/model and reg no, they basically had all the info they needed to go to his house, and when he answered the door the policeman told me he was completed intoxicated. They breathalysed him there and then and performed a few tests on the car to prove it had been used recently, temperature of oil etc.
The guy was Polish and didn't speak very good English and he was 2.5 times over the limit. He was arrested immediately and the police came back to me that night and took thorough statements.
After initially admitting it, he's now gone back and said he hadn't been driving - obviously someone has made him aware the police have to prove he was in the car, which is where i come in. I hope to god i remember his face, but somehow i think it will come flooding back when i see his face as he nearly ran me off the road twice before mounting the kerb :mad:
I'm going to do a 'video still' ID parade on this today :rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.