Invalid licence

[Hella]

Thank you so much for your advice . At the time of the accident the driver said he did not know who insured him and his employer would give details . His employer only gave the name and address of his company no insurance either .

once again thank you very much .

[Hella]

Yes the licence is invalid as I hadn’t renewed it . I have sent for a new one yesterday morning .

[des8]

So I would try and ascertain the driver's name (from his boss possibly?) and write to him at the taxi company address.

[HandyAndy]

Is the licence invalid because of the 10 year renewal. You would be surprised how many of these come up in court (incidentally to another driving offence usualy). If so have you renewed it?

I trust they arise in court when the allegation is that the holder's photograph has expired, not because it is alleged their licence (i.e. their entitlement to drive) has.

The "ten year renewal" applies to the holder's photograph only, not to his licence. Unless it is a shorter term licence issued to those with medical conditions which may affect their fitness to drive, a UK driving licence is valid until the holder's 70th birthday. After that it must be renewed every three years. That may only be curtailed by a court (in the event of disqualification) or by the DVLA revoking it for some reason (in which case the holder must be advised of the revocation in writing).

If you look at your driving licence, on the front you will see a date adjacent to item 4b. This is the date on which your photo expires or, as the reverse of the licence puts it, ‘licence valid to’. This suggests the licence itself expires on that date, but it doesn’t. To find the actual expiry date of your entitlement to drive you must look at column 11 on the back of your licence where the dates printed should normally coincide with your 70th birthday. If you are over 70 the dates at 4b and column 11 will be the same.

In short, an expired photograph does not mean the driver is driving without a licence. If an insurer has a condition that the driver must hold a valid licence and they tried to deny cover on the basis of an expired photograph, they would fail.

[Huxie]

I trust they arise in court when the allegation is that the holder's photograph has expired, not because it is alleged their licence (i.e. their entitlement to drive) has.

The "ten year renewal" applies to the holder's photograph only, not to his licence. Unless it is a shorter term licence issued to those with medical conditions which may affect their fitness to drive, a UK driving licence is valid until the holder's 70th birthday. After that it must be renewed every three years. That may only be curtailed by a court (in the event of disqualification) or by the DVLA revoking it for some reason (in which case the holder must be advised of the revocation in writing).

If you look at your driving licence, on the front you will see a date adjacent to item 4b. This is the date on which your photo expires or, as the reverse of the licence puts it, ‘licence valid to’. This suggests the licence itself expires on that date, but it doesn’t. To find the actual expiry date of your entitlement to drive you must look at column 11 on the back of your licence where the dates printed should normally coincide with your 70th birthday. If you are over 70 the dates at 4b and column 11 will be the same.

In short, an expired photograph does not mean the driver is driving without a licence. If an insurer has a condition that the driver must hold a valid licence and they tried to deny cover on the basis of an expired photograph, they would fail.

That’s very interesting and not something I was aware of. Now, having just researched this a bit, I’ve come across a reply to a blog post that states:

”Drivers who passed an ordinary driving test (categories A, B, BE, etc.) after January 2013 do not get licences valid till their 70th birthdays - they get 10 year licences so the photocard expiry and licence expiry dates will usually be the same, so they could indeed be prosecuted for not having a valid licence.”

Do you know if this is, in fact, the case?

[HandyAndy]

Do you know if this is, in fact, the case?

Not so far as I know. The government's web page explaining the contents of a driving licence still show different dates at 4a and column 11.

I'll make some enquiries.

[Hella]

I have just read through my driving history via the online dvla webpage.
It states that my entitlement to drive is until 2044. Does this mean then that I am still allowed to drive and therefore still should be covered by our insurance .
I can post screen shots if this allowed .

[islandgirl]

The people with the expired licences I have come across are never there because of the expired licence. It is mentioned in passing almost.

[Hella]

It’s all so confusing . I’ve read through my policy it mentions an invalid licence not being covered , nothing about an expired or entitlement to drive still .

[des8]

Regarding licence validity interpret the position as follows:

HELLA has entitlement to drive until 2044.(as per the dates at sec 11 on back of licence)
The licence she was holding expired in c2019 (date at 4b on front of licence) and so was invalid

The date of entitlement does not extend the validity of the licence beyond the expiry date.
Insurers are not likely to roll over and accept an expired licence as being valid

[Hella]

The date of entitlement does not extend the validity of the licence beyond the expiry date.
Insurers are not likely to roll over and accept an expired licence as being valid

Thank you for clarifying .

[islandgirl]

https://www.lawble.co.uk/driving-licence-expired/

[PallasAthena]

Looking at my driving licence the front of the photocard is headed "Driving Licence" and the date (10 year period) in section 4b is described a "Licence valid to" [my bold]. My insurance policy says the driver has to have "a valid, current and appropriate (for the type of vehicle) licence". So I can't see my insurer (or the police) would accept the argument that an expired photocard was valid because of the dates on the reverse when 4b expressly states that it isn't (and in the case of my policy wording I'd be caught by the requirement for it to be "current" as well.)

The reverse side may well mean that I am entitled to apply for a licence to drive those vehicle categories up to the dates shown there but that doesn't make the expired licence valid if I have not, in fact, applied/reapplied for a licence. Entitlement to apply for a licence is not the same thing as entitlement to drive.

[Hella]

Thank you all for your replies . Hopefully I will be able to recoup some costs from the other drivers insurance with it being his fault .

[HandyAndy]

To address post #20, I have checked with two people who have been issued recently with new licences (one as recently as last month) and both have confirmed that their expiry date (at item 4b on the front) is ten years after issue whilst their entitlements in column 11 on the back last until they are aged 70.

We will have to revert to the legislation, then:

Section 99(1) of the Road Traffic Act confirms that, subject to certain exceptions, a licence issued following the passing of a test will last until the holder’s 70th birthday:

99 Duration of licences.

(1)[A licence] which authorises its holder to drive motor vehicles of classes other than any prescribed class of goods vehicle or any prescribed class of passenger-carrying vehicle, shall, unless previously revoked or surrendered, remain in force, ....except in a case falling within paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection, for the period ending on the seventieth anniversary of the applicant’s date of birth or for a period of three years, whichever is the longer,

Paragraphs (b) and (c) provide exceptions where the licence is revoked by the DVLA for medical reasons and where a replacement licence for a short term one is issued, so are not relevant for the sake of this argument.

The transgression of driving without a licence or otherwise than in accordance with it is created by section 87(1) of the RTA. That of driving with an expired photograph is created under Section 99(5) of the same Act, which makes it an offence to fail to surrender a licence which has passed its “administrative validity period” (i.e. usually ten years). There is a crucial difference between these two offences: the first carries a mandatory endorsement and between 3 and 6 penalty points. The second, as with many "administrative" offences, carries a fine only.

Older readers may recall the era before photocard licences when just a paper licence was provided. This lasted until age 70. When the photocard was first introduced it was not valid without a paper counterpart. The photocard had to be renewed after ten years but the paper counterpart remained valid until age 70. When the counterpart was abolished that difference remained, meaning the holder was “licenced” until age 70 but had to renew his “administrative” licence containing his photograph every ten years. Parliament's intention with this was simple – it was to ensure that photographs on licences contained a fairly recent likeness. It was not intended to impinge on the “entitlement to drive.”

As far as insurers go, they have to show that any condition they impose which enables them to deny cover has a material influence on their risk. They cannot, for example, say that they will deny cover to a driver if he is wearing a red pullover as the colour of the driver's jumper has no bearing on the risk to the insurer. So with this, their risk does not suddenly increase on the day after a driving licence photograph is ten years old. Section 99(1) of the RTA clearly states that a licence "...shall remain in force" until age 70. After that time a driver must complete a self-certificated "fitness to drive" before being granted a further licence. The situation now is no different to the previous regime where a paper counterpart was valid to age 70 but the photocard had to be renewed every ten years. A driver cannot be prosecuted for driving without a licence simply on the basis that his photograph is out of date because his licence "remains in force". With this in mind I would suggest again that any insurer who denied cover because of an expired photograph would fail. Here's a better summary than mine by Michael Pace, partner and head of motor law and PI team, Andrew & Co LLP. He wrote the article to advise fleet managers on checking employees' licences:

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/blog/ent...icences/46025/

Crucially, he says this:

When carrying out annual checks of employees’ licences, fleet managers should ensure that photos are valid. This will avoid the need for legal advice if an overzealous police officer attempts to seize the vehicle or, if following an accident, an insurer refuses to indemnify.

There is a clear distinction between holding a licence (i.e. an entitlement to drive) - and the requirement to have an up to date photograph on the physical representation of that licence. Anybody who was granted a licence before 1988, provided they have not changed their name, address or had it revoked for any reason, has had no requirement to possess a photocard licence at all. They therefore have had no requirement to renew anything in that time. Their licence has "remained in force" throughout, as has that of a holder of a photocard licence, even though the photograph may be more than ten years old.

I have in mind reading an adjudication from the FCA's insurance ombudsman which covers just this point. I'll see if I can find it.