Learner drivers - Legal experts help required.

[Comefromaway]

Can anyone point me to the actual legislation whether it be the The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 and 2021 amendments or the Road Traffic Act or Motor Vehicles (Driving Licence) Regulations or anything else, where it says that a Learner Driver cannot drive at all, even if making an essential journey with a member of their own household.

Eg. if I give my child a lift to work according to gov.uk & various people’s interpretations including a local 6th form, they cannot be the driver.

But I can’t find any actual legislation that says that.

Our insurer says it's okay at the moment www.collingwood.co.uk/covid19-update/

I don’t yet have an insurer to speak to. But from what I gather the major insurers are still insuring learner drivers. And they would have to inform you if they were withdrawing that cover.

Just checked DS insurance and it says lockdown restrictions will not invalidate the insurance, I’ve taken a screenshot for my own piece of mind.

Ds is also an essential worker (supermarket) so in my mind better that he drives rather than risk public transport (once he’s passed). I’d drive him anyway at the moment but am hoping he’d be able to drive himself sooner rather than later.

@Grumpyoldpersonwithcats

The guidance on the .gov website is absolutely clear on this with no interpretation required. Why not just follow it?

Because the difference between guidance and law is an important one.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55594244

There was a .gov update mid last week and another a few days later which made a change to the previous wording. I've deleted the emails now but do remember that in lockdown 1 it was only really obvious that it had been against the rules once notification went out confirming driving lessons were able to re start - the wording used made it really obvious that driving as a learner during lockdown was against the rules.

Just had a look and this is pretty clear - it's a no in England.

Nope they don't @TabbyStar, they've been very clear despite loads of petitions they have no interest in extending them or offering another for free (even though I shouldn't have to, I'd take it again happily if I didn't have to pay for it)

That's ridiculous, they should at least offer it for free.

I get regular email updates on this. The sentence about learners driving on essential journeys in England was removed a few days ago as @TheTeenageYears says. Very frustrating as DD was due to sit a test the week before Christmas.

I think it’s awful they aren’t at least offering free theory retakes

The tests are outsourced to a private company. One that depends upon the income to pay staff. They aren't getting paid for theory tests now, obviously and wouldn't be able to write off the vast majority of their business indefinitely (due to the sheer numbers) for free retests, which would mean a further massive outlay for 'government' - ie, us.

@DahliaMacNamara

I get regular email updates on this. The sentence about learners driving on essential journeys in England was removed a few days ago as *@TheTeenageYears* says. Very frustrating as DD was due to sit a test the week before Christmas.

It was only on Thursday, this from the Gov website showing updates. 7 January 2021 Removed "unless it's with someone from your household during an essential journey" in England from 1. Driving lessons and motorcycle training: local restrictions

But, it is clearly stated as ‘guidance’......

I don't claim to be an expert but as I understand it (from the many people on MN who do claim to be experts ), if it says "should not" it's guidance but if it says "must not", it's law.

I would think it would come under not being a "reasonable excuse" to be out. Which is definitely law.

You know the answer really.

@StCharlotte

I don't claim to be an expert but as I understand it (from the many people on MN who do claim to be experts ), if it says "should not" it's guidance but if it says "must not", it's law.

I would think it would come under not being a "reasonable excuse" to be out. Which is definitely law.

You know the answer really.

Sometimes!

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8875/CBP-8875.pdf

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/government-law-and-guidance-coronavirus-crisis

Coronavirus guidance and lockdown laws
There is now huge range of government guidance relating to coronavirus. Most coronavirus guidance is a mixture of information on the law and public health advice.

Government guidance should indicate something is public health advice instead of law by the way it is written. The use of ‘should’ and ‘should not’ tend to be used when describing advice whereas words like ‘must’ and ‘can’t’ are typically used when describing law. Coronavirus guidance is not always written in this way. Concerns have been expressed that discerning which instructions are required under law and which are public health advice can be difficult.

Some of the law described in coronavirus guidance is not ‘lockdown laws’. There have been hundreds of pieces of legislation made to respond to coronavirus. In addition to new law, many existing laws are relevant to the coronavirus pandemic (for example health and safety legislation and employment law). It can sometimes be difficult to attribute the legal basis of an instruction given in coronavirus guidance.

I would think it would come under not being a "reasonable excuse" to be out. Which is definitely law.

But if DD needs to go somewhere that is a reasonable excuse (e.g. a medical appointment as she's had a few recently) either I drive her, or she drives me.

We're in Scotland. Ds was17 last March. One lesson before first lockdown. Lessons didn't restart here until August. Off again on November when he had his first theory test cancelled. Rebooked for 6th January, cancelled.

With the backlog of theory and practical tests he'll be lucky to pass before his 21st birthday.

@StCharlotte

I don't claim to be an expert but as I understand it (from the many people on MN who do claim to be experts ), if it says "should not" it's guidance but if it says "must not", it's law.

I would think it would come under not being a "reasonable excuse" to be out. Which is definitely law.

You know the answer really.

Yes, when it comes to the law, words are important. But, as seen as the Gov.co.uk website seems to alternate, randomly, between using ‘practice’ and ‘practise’ when referring to driving, I’m not entirely sure they can be trusted.

My dd learned so much driving me to the supermarket in lockdown one. It really increased her confidence and she got used to driving her car (old banger) instead of the instructors car. I checked with her insurer and kept their email reply in case I needed it. Obviously this paragraph didn’t exist then. She’s passed her test now and has volunteered to do the shopping solo now so she gets to continue driving and doesn’t lose confidence. There’s no objection from me!

@Grumpyoldpersonwithcats

The guidance on the .gov website is absolutely clear on this with no interpretation required. Why not just follow it?

Because once we start "just following" illogical guidance which seems entirely arbitrary and to have no common sense behind it, we run the risk of becoming even more screwed by our incompetent leadership than we currently are.

You'd think that history contained sufficient examples of what can happen when a people blindly "just follow" guidance yet here we are....

It doesn't matter what an insurer says. If it's against the law it's an individual's responsibility to comply and relying on something from them will not be a get out. If a car is insured in a learners name the insurer will continue to cover the car because it needs to but that doesn't automatically mean the learner is allowed to drive it if there's either law or guidance to say otherwise.

I have a DS caught up in all this and I won't take any chances in this area - if you get it wrong, it's their driving record that's at stake and any court case to try and prove it was only guidelines and not law would take months/years and in the meantime where does it potentially leave them - possibly banned from driving????

possibly banned from driving????

So no different to now, then?

It doesn't matter what an insurer says. If it's against the law it's an individual's responsibility to comply and relying on something from them will not be a get out

That's what we're questioning though, where is the actual legislation that says it's against the law as opposed to a statement on a website?

Wow, yet another thing to add to the pile of shit things happening to our young people.

DD was chucked under the bus last year when exams were cancelled as she was one of the ones at the threshold who could have managed to pass by a lot of revising and hard work. She didn't pass her main subjects and had to rethink the college she was going to and the course.

All the end of school things were cancelled including the prom I had already bought her dress for, followed by not being able to have the freedoms that you usually have at 16 even over the summer and now not seeing her friends at all.

She was looking forward to starting her lessons in March so I'm hoping this changes by then.

@TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross yes potentially quite different from now. Have you seen the penalties for newly qualified drivers and how easy it is for them to lose their license compared to more experienced drivers and that's once they have passed. What do you think the penalty might be for driving whilst law/guidance says otherwise, what will happen to them if god forbid they have an accident in those circumstances?

The problem with any insurance is you only find out how truly worthless it is until after an event when they will do their very best to get out of paying a claim. I'm just not convinced that the principles of this topic (law or guidance) are worth questioning because the ramifications could take a really long time to resolve. If someone wants to challenge a £200 rule breaking fine and it takes years to do then other than being down either £200 for however long or risk higher financial penalties there's no other issue. If a learner gets stopped driving and the authorities decide they will treat as someone driving without a license there are severe repercussions. It's not a risk I want my 18 year old to take however strongly I feel about him having his theory test cancelled in lockdown 1, passing in July but having no priority for a practical test once they became available, sitting on a computer for hours and hours on 3 occasions to get a practical test date, having that cancelled in lockdown 2, being put at the back of the queue for a new test date despite being test ready and 6 days away from taking test in lockdown 2. It looking very likely that the currently rebooked test date will still be in lockdown and therefore cancelled again and once again rebooking will just push all those affected to the end of the queue again. A fairly unique set of family circumstances also means the effects of all this have massively affected our whole family BUT I still don't think it's worth taking a chance that it's just guidance and not law.

I’d say the guidance isn’t clear, as demonstrated here. It’s one thing for us to discuss it all day but for people who don’t use mumsnet they may have no idea it isn’t (??) allowed for essential journeys.

It’s obvious that insurance companies aren’t clear either or why are they selling invalid insurance policies and stating it is allowed on their pages. We insurance the car as it is our vehicle but DS learner insurance is specifically for one off learner sessions with a different insurer, not for the car generally.

Even DS’s driving instructor said something along the lines of ‘just practice as much as you can with your parents’.

Also, if it is seen as illegal, surely the supervising driver would be prosecuted as well?

It just seems so unfair- another area for our youngsters to lose out in.

For me, the removal of the clause about learners being permitted to drive on essential journeys in the guidance gives a strong indicator of the line we are expected to follow. I too am concerned for the ramifications of getting it wrong. We live a four minute 20 mph drive from the only supermarket for miles, so it's not as if DD would be missing out on anything much but parking practice even if she were permitted to drive during lockdown.

@TabbyStar

It doesn't matter what an insurer says. If it's against the law it's an individual's responsibility to comply and relying on something from them will not be a get out

That's what we're questioning though, where is the actual legislation that says it's against the law as opposed to a statement on a website?

This