Driver With 68 Penalty Points Avoids Disqualification

A driver who clearly struggles to obey the rules of the road has avoided disqualification despite amassing 68 penalty points on their licence.

That's according to a DVLA Freedom of Information response sent to Sarah Olney MP, as reported on the RAC website.

I am grateful to a reader for bringing this article to my attention.

Before continuing I should also apologise for my recent lack of activity, but I have been away from home on family duties for the last week or so.

In its response to Ms Olney, the DVLA confirmed that at the time of her request, which was probably around the first week of July, there were 1,728 drivers that had avoided disqualification despite having 12 or more penalty points on their licence. This was a reduction from 9,349 drivers with 12 or more points on their licence back in April. The Agency confirmed there were 1,024,489 drivers with points on their licence

We have previously written an article all about the rules surrounding totting up and exceptional hardship.

Keeping it brief, a driver who accumulates 12 or more penalty points on their licence within the space of 3 years will be subject to a minimum disqualification of 6 months. The disqualification period would be even longer if they had previously been disqualified for a period of 56 days or more in the preceding 3 years.

If the driver can convince the court that they would suffer exceptional hardship as a result of their disqualification, then the court has the discretion to reduce (or eliminate) the period of disqualification. If the court accepts exceptional hardship, the driver won't be able to offer the same exceptional hardship argument on a subsequent occasion.

Exceptional hardship has to mean just that - hardship that is well beyond that which should be experienced by a disqualified driver. Disqualification should be a nuisance and inconvenience for the driver concerned, in the hope that they will loathe the experience so much that they will improve their standard of driving in the future. The court might accept an exceptional hardship argument if it can be persuaded that the disqualification will have a detrimental impact on people other than the driver.

For example, the court might accept exceptional hardship in the case of a delivery driver who will lose their job, and therefore risk losing their family home, if they are disqualified from driving. In the current age of coronavirus, with unemployment rising quite markedly, the court will probably be of the opinion that those circumstances have a heightened likelihood and are indeed exceptional.

Ms Olney, the Liberal Democrat's transport spokesperson, said: "It's possible that there are mitigating factors in some cases which justify these drivers hanging on to their right to drive.

"But if we are honest, if you have racked up a dozen points, you are probably a bad driver."

Ms Olney is certainly correct that there must be mitigating - indeed exceptional - factors that have allowed these drivers avoid disqualification.

My personal concern is that many drivers are getting wise to what the court might consider to be exceptional hardship.

They know that if they stand in the witness box and say "my sick grandmother relies on me driving her 50 miles for kidney dialysis three times a week", "I live where there is no public transport, so I'll be unable to work and support my children" or "my business will collapse and my five staff will lose their jobs" the court will probably make a finding of exceptional hardship. If they are happy to stand in the witness box and make such claims, on oath, then the court has to accept their word at face value.

Joshua Harris, director of campaigns at road safety charity Brake, said: "If drivers who rack up 12 points aren't banned, it undermines, and makes a mockery of, the entire system.

"Driving is a privilege, not a right; and if that privilege is not exercised responsibly, it should be taken away, no matter how inconvenient."

On a personal level, I agree with that comment entirely. On a judicial level, of course we must apply the rules that exist fairly and consistently.