The High Court has refused a probation officer’s application to quash a six-month driving disqualification imposed after she accepted two fixed penalty notices while still a novice driver.
Ms Justice Niamh Hyland ruled that an email from the National Driver Licence Service (NDLS) contained a clerical error about when three earlier penalty points would expire. But the message also said she “currently” had three points, and its wording was internally contradictory. The court found it was not reasonable to treat it as a definitive statement that the points had expired.
The applicant had received three points in 2019 for using a mobile phone while driving. The notice informing her of those points said they would remain on her record for three years from 11 February 2019. In October and November 2020, she received fixed penalty notices for holding a mobile phone while driving and for failing to display N plates.
After asking the NDLS how many points she had, she received an email on 13 November 2020 stating that she had three points, which were “due to expire 10-Feb-2020”. She then paid the fixed penalties. The new points brought her total to eight, triggering automatic disqualification under the statutory regime for novice drivers, who are disqualified at seven points. The disqualification was due to begin on 21 December 2020.
She argued that she relied on the email when paying and expected to remain below the disqualification threshold. Her solicitor later said she would have waited to pay until after 5 December, when she would cease to be a novice driver and could accumulate more points before disqualification. The court noted there was no evidence from the applicant about her understanding when she paid. It also said the email’s conflicting dates and wording called for clarification, particularly given the earlier notice stating the points would last three years.
The judge rejected the legitimate-expectations claim because the email did not make a clear, unambiguous promise that the earlier points had expired, and reliance on it was not objectively reasonable. She did not decide the separate argument that an automatic statutory disqualification could not be judicially reviewed, saying it had not been properly pleaded.
The applicant’s separate argument that a mistake of fact caused unfairness had also not been adequately pleaded. The judge added that, even if it had been, the email’s ambiguity meant the applicant could not reasonably rely on the error. The court refused the relief sought and said the stay on the disqualification would be lifted once the order was perfected. It put the case back to 3 December 2021 for submissions on costs and/or a further stay.