The Lemon Fool

So a friend of my wife (let's call her Betty) has been nicked for allowing a minor to drive her car.

It is an odd charge in a way because Betty's daughter is 17 and so is old enough to drive. But of course she has not passed her test and so has only a provisional license. I would have thought the real issue is not so much her age but rather the lack of insurance - this was an impromptu driving lesson for which Betty bought no additional insurance.

So plumb guilty, and a ban is possible. Betty is a senior nurse at a prestigious hospital and needs her car for work. Does anyone know whether an argument can successfully be made in court that Betty's ban have an exemption for driving to and from work only? I have heard that sometimes happens for people with vital jobs

Well 3 teenage trainee lawyers beat the hell out of some dude in Union Street Aberdeen and were let off because a criminal record would affect their employment prospects.

And the teenage lawyer scumbag thugs instead of humbly accepting that they dodged a bullet and slinking quietly away punched the air and openly celebrated outside the courthouse.

One rule for them eh?

So yes, I think she has a case there. Especially given that Betty's expertise is actually is of some use to society.

What exactly is she charged with? Does she have any mitigation?

Spet0789 wrote:What exactly is she charged with? Does she have any mitigation?

The charge is "allowing a minor to drive" although, as stated, the real issue is not her daughter's age which. at 17, is old enough to drive. But rather that she is a learner and with no insurance for that. No L plate either.

No mitigation for culpability but many patients depend on her skills, and she is a single mother.

Lootman wrote:

Spet0789 wrote:What exactly is she charged with? Does she have any mitigation?

The charge is "allowing a minor to drive" although, as stated, the real issue is not her daughter's age which. at 17, is old enough to drive. But rather that she is a learner and with no insurance for that. No L plate either.

I wonder why the daughter wasn't charged with those (common) offences then?

The "allowing a minor to drive" is so rare I can't find any mention of it in the UK, or what the sentencing guidelines might be.

Scott.

swill453 wrote:

Lootman wrote:The charge is "allowing a minor to drive" although, as stated, the real issue is not her daughter's age which. at 17, is old enough to drive. But rather that she is a learner and with no insurance for that. No L plate either.

I wonder why the daughter wasn't charged with those (common) offences then?

The "allowing a minor to drive" is so rare I can't find any mention of it in the UK, or what the sentencing guidelines might be.

Yes, I found it interesting that the daughter was not charged. If her mother had not been in the car then I feel sure that she would have been.

Lootman wrote:

swill453 wrote:I wonder why the daughter wasn't charged with those (common) offences then?

The "allowing a minor to drive" is so rare I can't find any mention of it in the UK, or what the sentencing guidelines might be.

Yes, I found it interesting that the daughter was not charged. If her mother had not been in the car then I feel sure that she would have been.

Are you sure you've got the charge right? I can't find any mention of that offence in the UK in the usual places.

Does it say what the possible penalties are?

Scott.

swill453 wrote:

Lootman wrote:Yes, I found it interesting that the daughter was not charged. If her mother had not been in the car then I feel sure that she would have been.

Are you sure you've got the charge right? I can't find any mention of that offence in the UK in the usual places.

Does it say what the possible penalties are?

She told me that was the charge. This is in England. The cop who booked her told her that a ban is possible.

I do not know either which is why I asked.

and what would be the difference whether the driver was 17 or 77 with no full licence or insurance cover in place?

something's really not adding up?

didds wrote:and what would be the difference whether the driver was 17 or 77 with no full licence or insurance cover in place?

something's really not adding up?

And another thing is that minors do get charged and receive driving bans, even if they aren't old enough to drive. Something very strange going on.

https://youtalk-insurance.com/broker-ne ... om-driving

It would be helpful to have the Section of the law under which she is charged, which will be noted on the charge sheet.

ISTM the parent is being charged because until the child is 18 she is a minor and the parent still has responsibility to ensure she keeps the law. As the law was broken under the parent's care and direction she is being held responsible. However there must surely be a specific offence in the driving law here, hence the request to quote it.


GS

If I had been hit by an uninsured driver, well two people involved who should have know better, I would want the book thrown at them.

Both made a chose albeit a bad one. If Betty got a 5 year ban that would be OK with me.

You make your bed and you lie in it. Maybe she didn't factor in those concequenses when she was trying to save a few Bob or the fact she could be left having to pay for the damage to my car or worse medical bills for my children.

There are busses and taxis, "if you can't do the time don't do the crime"

It seems to me that there are several potential problems.

First, is the 17-year old named on the mother's insurance. If not, she is driving while uninsured.

Second, did she have a provisional license? If not, then driving without a license.

Third, was the car displaying L-plates? If not, another offence.

Fourth, was the mother in the car?. If not, another offence.

There might be other cases relating to an incident, but those are what I see as the immediate ones.

TJH

tjh290633 wrote:It seems to me that there are several potential problems.

First, is the 17-year old named on the mother's insurance. If not, she is driving while uninsured.

Second, did she have a provisional license? If not, then driving without a license.

Third, was the car displaying L-plates? If not, another offence.

Fourth, was the mother in the car?. If not, another offence.

There might be other cases relating to an incident, but those are what I see as the immediate ones.

TJH

yes... but none of them are specifically about being a minor - she could be a 40 year old and the same would be true.

which - while those points are entirely valid - just shows the alleged charge is a bit ... odd

Surely her defence is that under a different law minors are allowed to drive cars from the age of 17, and her daughter is 17.

Presumably she was also 17 on the date of the supposed offence.

tjh290633 wrote:It seems to me that there are several potential problems.

First, is the 17-year old named on the mother's insurance. If not, she is driving while uninsured.

Second, did she have a provisional license? If not, then driving without a license.

Third, was the car displaying L-plates? If not, another offence.

Fourth, was the mother in the car?. If not, another offence.

There might be other cases relating to an incident, but those are what I see as the immediate ones.

1) Not named on the insurance
2) Daughter has a provisional license, and has had a few formal lessons.
3) No L plate
4) Mother was in the car, passenger seat.

No way that Betty gets off here. She is just hoping for points and a fine, but no ban. I suspect that a ban is discretionary, rather than mandatory as with drunk driving. This is bad but not as bad as driving drunk, in my view.

I have not seen the charge sheet but it is only one charge: "allowing a minor to drive". It does seem odd to me that the charge is not driving without insurance and/or driving without a L plate. Daughter is not charged.

Mike4 wrote:Surely her defence is that under a different law minors are allowed to drive cars from the age of 17.

Presumably she was also 17 on the date of the supposed offence.

Yes, 17 at the time.

Not sure if this adds anything but I knew of a case where the mother was supervising her learner driver son in a car. The car was stopped and she was breathalysed, found to be over the limit and received a ban. I have a feeling that the person supervising is considered to be in charge of the vehicle hence the charges against the mother in your case.

John

Extensive googling still fails to find mention of this offence, even trying variations of phrasing. I can't help thinking there's some breakdown in communication somewhere between offender/police/Lootman.

Scott.

swill453 wrote:Extensive googling still fails to find mention of this offence, even trying variations of phrasing. I can't help thinking there's some breakdown in communication somewhere between offender/police/Lootman.

Obviously I am only going on what I was told. Betty might have omitted things that were (even more) embarrassing for her. The charge was stated to me as "allowing a minor to drive without insurance". There to no charge for the lack of L plates.

Apparently the cop told Betty that her daughter should not suffer because of her (Betty's) stupidity. And RS's comment seems plausible to me in explaining why it is the mother and not the daughter being charged. Perhaps if the daughter had been 18 and not 17 then the charge might have been different.

Apparently Betty has 3 points on her license from a speeding ticket, that expire in 2024.

Hi All.

I've no idea of the veracity thereof, but this seems to cover it

https://www.motordefencesolicitors.co.uk/offence-guides/no-licence/#:~:text=It%20is%20also%20an%20offence,hold%20a%20valid%20driving%20licence.

It also notes

"... discretionary disqualification from driving ..."

in the punishment options. Try this search string in Google

"allowing an unlicensed person to drive without a license uk"

and it will give you a number of similar legal sites. One even mentions imprisonment as an option.

Regards, Newroad