Forrest Williams - 24 Hour Motoring Lawyers - page 24 Motoring Advice Blog - Page 24 of 82 - Forrest Williams

Freephone: 0800 1933 999
Mobile Freephone: 01623 397 200

Chat Online

Motoring Advice Blog

Case Study: Speeding Conditional Offer For Client

 

A fantastic result for a client in court today, even though the case was a little different to those we generally deal with on a daily basis.

 

We were contacted by a gentleman in relation to a speeding charge. He had received a Conditional Offer of 3 penalty points and £100 fine for a speeding matter that should have attracted a short disqualification or 6 points. So he accepted the Conditional Offer, right?

 

Wrong.

 

He rang a firm of solicitors for advice and was told to ignore the Conditional Offer and they would help him fight it. Now, we know that if you ignore a conditional offer then the matter is entered into Court and the potential penalties are a lot more severe, but he didn’t know that and I suspect a lot of people probably don’t realise that as well.  What’s more, if a solicitor tells you to just ignore it, most people would follow those instructions, because a solicitor is a professional person and will always give you the best possible advice.

 

Unfortunately that isn’t always the case.

 

Based on the advice of this solicitor, our client was now facing a court hearing, with the magistrates guidelines for that speed being a disqualification of up to 56 days or 6 points. He couldn’t contact the solicitors and his calls and emails were not being answered. He was now desperate.

 

He had 3 points on his licence already, so even if he was given the full 6 he wouldn’t have totted up and been disqualified, but his job as a self-employed driver would have been in jeopardy as due to conditions of insurance he would have lost his job once he went over 6 points on his licence, and would not have been able to find another driving role whilst he had 9 points on his licence.

 

He was the sole earner in the household, with a wife who is a non driver and a disabled child to look after. No licence would mean no job, no income and no transport for their child.

 

So now we can see the situation was a very precarious one. Although this wasn’t a conventional Exceptional Hardship case, this was the way we needed to present it to the Court.

 

It’s fair to say that he wasn’t keen to instruct me. He was furious with the previous solicitor and in no mood to trust anything I told him, or spend more money on legal advice.

 

He reluctantly instructed us as he felt unable to deal with what he saw as a helpless situation, and over the course of our case preparations his distrust in solicitors did not wane one bit. He challenged every single thing I told him and we’d had some extremely difficult conversations by the time the matter came to court.

 

We petitioned the Bench to not impose the obvious sentence according to their guidelines but to look at the individual circumstances of this case with a degree of humanity and common sense. Magistrates are often loathe to sentence outside of their guidelines but with a very persuasive argument by our Barrister they agreed to honour the original Conditional Offer and our client was sentenced to 3 points and £100 fine which was an exceptional result.

 

He was so relieved with the verdict he cried when it came, and I almost joined him.

 

A very difficult situation, a challenging client but a fantastic result. I had to try and change his mindset and persuade him to trust me, and it paid off.

 

If there is a lesson here, it is to ring around and don’t accept the first piece of legal advice you are given as its not always appropriate to your case.

 

Or, ring us first, we will listen to your whole story, we will be honest with you and we will help and support you every single step of your journey.

 

My name is Julia Coffin, and I’d be delighted to give you a first or second opinion about your legal case.  You can call me on 01623 397200.

 

 

Case Study: Successful Exceptional Hardship

Forrest Williams were delighted to achieve another wonderful result for a London based client yesterday!  Once again our faith in our excellent specialist team of Barristers was rewarded with a successful Exceptional Hardship application. Proving that such applications do not need to be financially driven the case was presented based upon the impact of loss of licence on those around the client upon whom they depended.

 

Charged with speeding our client had unfortunately reached the dreaded 12 points and therefore fell to be disqualified for 6 months as a ‘totter’ – something he told us he could not cope with.

 

Our client’s needs were two-fold – not only did he need to retain his licence but before that he also needed the case date moving for medical reasons (not his own). Working together with the client we were able to persuade the court to move the hearing date to a more suitable time, allowing our client to provide the care and support needed to his partner when due to undergo major cardiovascular surgery. 

 

So often we hear, “I couldn’t afford to pay my bills without my licence” – this was not the case here. Our client acts as carer not only for his partner but also for a friend with severe learning difficulties. With children grown and living and working away there was no-one else available to shoulder these responsibilities so as a family they would have struggled immensely.

 

So often people say that if you live in London then you don’t need a car, you can cope with public transport, but for a lot of people that really is not true.  The difficulty in Exceptional Hardship cases is making sure that the courts get the true picture, and this is why Exceptional Hardship cases require a great deal of expert preparation.

 

Exceptional Hardship applications are not a checklist. There is no right or wrong situation to be in – your circumstances are unique to you.

 

If you are concerned that your family would be negatively impacted by the loss of your driving licence please give our team a call on 01623 397200 – we promise to be honest with you about your chances of success and, if appropriate, to work with you to build the strongest possible application.

Driving Whilst Using A Mobile Phone or No Seatbelt

Driving Whilst Using a Mobile Phone or No Seatbelt

 

The Department for Transport has announced the results of its recent surveys into the use of mobile phones and seatbelts by motorists in England (and Scotland).

 

The surveys, carried out in 2014, in some ways mirror the findings of the previous surveys, which were carried out in 2009.

 

For example, the proportion of car drivers observed using hand-held mobile phones in England in 2014 was 1.5%, whereas the figure for the 2009 was 1.4%.

 

The survey found that drivers were more likely to be observed with a mobile phone in their hand rather than holding it to their ear. In 2014, (1.1% of drivers in England and Scotland were observed holding a phone in their hand compared with 0.5% observed holding the phone to their ear.)

 

A higher proportion of drivers in England and Scotland were observed using a hand-held mobile phone when stationary (2.3 %) than in moving traffic (1.6 %).

 

And, in case you were wondering how these figures apply to male and female drivers, the survey would suggest that women drivers are more law-abiding than men. A significantly higher proportion of male drivers were observed using hand-held mobile phones than female drivers; 1.7% of male drivers in England and Scotland were observed using a hand-held mobile phone compared with 1.3% of female drivers.

 

The type of vehicle being driven also appears in the survey results. Bus, coach and minibus drivers are least likely to have been observed holding a mobile phone, at just 0.4% of drivers, whereas 2.7% of van drivers were seen holding a mobile, making this group of drivers the most frequent offenders. Goods vehicle and lorry drivers were at 1.2%, with car drivers just ahead at 1.4%.

 

As regards seat belt use, 98.2% of car drivers were observed using seat belts in England and Scotland.

 

However, seat belt wearing rates were lower for other car occupants compared to car drivers. 96.7% of all front seat passengers and 90.6% of all rear seat passengers were observed using seat belts or child restraints in England and Scotland.

 

The gender divide for the wearing of seatbelts shows that in this area, too, women drivers are more law-abiding than men. Male drivers in England and Scotland had a lower seat belt wearing rate (93.7%) than female drivers (98.2%).

 

Interestingly, there would appear to be an age-related dynamic to the wearing of seatbelts, with rates being higher for drivers aged 17-29 and aged 60 and over (96.1% and 96.5%) and seat belt wearing rates for drivers aged 30-59 lower at 94.7%.

 

For all front seat passengers in England and Scotland, the age group with the lowest restraint wearing rate was aged 14-29 (92.8%). Front seat passengers aged 0-13 (93.2%), 30-59 (94%) and 60 & over (97.3%) had higher rates.

 

For all rear seat passengers in England and Scotland, the age group with the lowest restraint wearing rate was aged 14-29 (83.7%). Rear seat passengers aged 0-4 (94.4%), 5-9 (92.3%), 10-13 (88%), 30-59 (87.8%) and 60 & over (91.6%) had higher rates.

 

So, as regards the survey figures for passengers, teenagers or young adults would appear to be less likely to wear seatbelts whether in the front or rear seats. The youngest people (below 14 years) or oldest (30 years and above) are the ones most likely to wear seatbelts.

 

In summary, according to the 2014 Seatbelt and Mobile Phone Use Surveys, most drivers do not use mobile phones whilst driving but do ‘belt up’. So although the focus of the survey is on the things drivers and passengers are doing wrong, most of us are getting it right!

 

 If you are being charged with a motoring offence, contact us now for expert advice on 01623 397200.

 

 

Forrest Williams TV