Am I still classed as a HRO?

Convicted Driver Insurance

rufus

Well-known member
I was convicted with being in charge of a vehicle whilst unfit and this ban is soon coming to an end.

Previously I was charged with not providing a specimen and was classed as a HRO - am I still classed as a HRO?, how long does being a HRO last, I have read that if you have 2 drink driving offences in 10 years you are a HRO but is being in charge whilst unfit classed as a drink driving offence?

I have not received my application form from the DVLA as I have moved house and they have sent it to my old address apparently, but refused to change my address and send me another application to my new address. As I am not sure if I am a HRO, so I dont know what application forms I need.

I just feel like I am going round in circles - any help much appreciated.
 

price1367

TTC Group
When I have come across this before, the outcome has been that whilst the court do not view “in charge whilst unfit” as being a second offence in 10 years to trigger a minimum 3 year ban (how long did you actually get?) DVLA did view the person as being a High Risk Offender and require a medical.
The form is identical for HRO or non HRO, ...... a D1 from the post office. The only difference is the postcode to sent it, and the amount to pay!
 

rufus

Well-known member
The judge jumped straight in and tried to ban me for the automatic 3 years but was informed by the clerk that as it was being in charge and not drink driving she could not do that - in the end she gave me 12 months disqualification, double the recommended sentencing guidelines.

If the courts of the british legal system do not class me as a HRO then how can the DVLA class me as one - I am not bothered about passing the medical as I havent had a drink in over a year but its the principle of the matter and of course the extra cost.
 

price1367

TTC Group
The answer is that there are 2 different piece of legislation that cover your circumstances.
first is what gets you a minimum sentence of 3 years which, as you will see in the list, does not cover being in charge of a motor vehicle:


That does not actually make you a high risk offender, although the term is commonly used to describe a person with 2 convictions in 10 years. That is why the advice was correct to not ban you for 3 years for the in charge offence.

Secondly is the legislation that is actually defines a high risk offender and triggers the need to have a medical.
The best explanation is here, and you will see that it includes an “in charge“ offence in the 2 within 10 year definition of a High Risk Offender.


So being a HRO is not a part of the sentence but is a function as a consequence of a list of offending. That is why it says at the end of the description that the court will not tell you that you are a HRO, it is not part of their punishment, but a consequence of it.

This is similar to the young drivers scheme Where 6 points in the first 2 years means they have to resit their test.
All the court does is issue points. As a function of 6 points being recorded on their licence, it triggers DVLA to notify the driver that their licence is being revoked. It is not revoked by the court but as a consequence of what the court has done.

Hope that helps ou understand what makes a HRO.
 

rufus

Well-known member
Many thanks, so it appears that although I couldn't be charged by the court as a repeat offender as the offence is not classed as a drink drive offence in law, the DVLA does class me as a HRO as they treat my offence as a drink drive offence, when in law it is clearly not. as I would have been banned for the mandatory 3 years
I find it confusing to say the least - why on earth does the law and the DVLA not marry up.
 

rufus

Well-known member
just to add
My endorsement code was DR50 In charge of a vehicle while unfit through drink and not DR40 - so does this then make me NOT an HRO by the DVLA own qualifying requirements?
 

price1367

TTC Group
DVLA are only carrying out the legislation, it is not their fault. The only HRO legislation is the one that says and offences involving drink drive or in charge offences, with 2 in 10 years, makes you a HRO and you need a medical. The law on the punishment for a repeat offence instructs magistrates to impose a minimum 3 year ban. That is not the HRO legislation that you are complaining about. If you followed the previous analogy that I have about points and new drivers you would see how they are separate.
On the basis that you put forward, how can the courts only impose 6 points, when DVLA then revoke their licence? .... because the law says that is what happens. The law doesn’t instruct the courts to ban a new driver on 6 points, it instructs the court to impose 6 points for, say, no insurance, and as a consequence of that it instructs DVLA to revoke their licence.
 

price1367

TTC Group
just to add
My endorsement code was DR50 In charge of a vehicle while unfit through drink and not DR40 - so does this then make me NOT an HRO by the DVLA own qualifying requirements?
no, DR50 still applies as it is an “in charge” offence. That code is not used often, only where there is no actual evidence of intoxication like a breath test reading but the impact on HRO is the same.
 

rufus

Well-known member
I fully understand what you are saying, I am just frustrated that this is not stated on the DVLA or .gov websites.

we started with -
if you have 2 drink driving offences in 10 years you are classed as a HRO
then your first link (to this site) stated this includes the "in charge" offence of DR40 as you have been tested and found to be above the legal limit, not driving but in charge.
then your second link (to a solicitors website) states that any "in charge" offence will be classed as drink driving offence (ie a DR50) - so you dont have to have been tested and found above the legal driving limit or found to be driving but just in charge with no test.
 

price1367

TTC Group
You are missing the point. ”drink driving offences” include any offence on relation to using the car whilst affected by alcohol, including “in charge”. If you are pedantic then in charge is not a drink driving offence, because you can be guilty of in charge without driving at all but that is not what the HRO scheme is for, it is for people who have been irresponsible with alcohol connected with motor vehicles, either at a high level who therefore have to show that they are fit to be given their licence back.
you are disputing between the DR40 and the DR50, - which you had. The DR40 could be someone who blew a fraction over the legal limit, and to all intents and purposes appeared to be fit to drive, but the law says they can’t because they are over the limit.
For a DR50, it is true that there does not have to be evidence that a person is over the limit - from a breath test, - for example, but there has to be evidence that a person is unfit to drive, which means they have been shown to be, potentially, a worse risk than someone who has simply blown over an arbitrary limit with no evidence of poor driving.

this is from the .gov website:

High risk offenders
If you’re a ‘high risk offender’, you will not get your new licence until you can prove you’re fit to drive again. You’ll need to pass a medical examination with one of DVLA’s appointed doctors.

You’re a high risk offender if you:

  • were convicted of 2 drink driving offences within 10 years
  • were driving with an alcohol reading of at least 87.5 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres (ml) of breath, 200 milligrammes (mg) of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, or 267.5 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of urine
  • refused to give the police a sample of breath, blood or urine to test for alcohol
  • refused to allow a sample of your blood to be tested for alcohol (for example if it was taken when you were unconscious)


if you are pedantic, you could argue that “I am not a HRO because I didn’t refuse to supply a sample, I tried but failed, that is different” but in fact they are one and the same for legal purposes.
it is the same for “2 Drink driving offences,“ in charge, driving or unfit are all “drink driving offences.

it is also in the guidance booklet on applying for your licence back after disqualification, note it says : “or for being unfit to drive because of drink.” Not “in charge and over the limit”

How do I know if I fall into the HRO category?
You will fall into the HRO category if any of the following apply.
• You have been disqualified for driving, or being in charge of a vehicle, when the level of alcohol in your body was equal to or more than:
- 87.5 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath
- 200 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood, or
- 267.5 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of urine.
• You have been disqualified twice within the space of 10 years for driving over the legal limit or for being unfit to drive because of drink.
• You have been disqualified for refusing or failing to provide a breath, blood or urine sample for testing.
• You have been disqualified for refusing to allow analysis of a blood sample taken due to incapacity.
Courts do not automatically tell you that you are in the HRO category as a result of a drink-driving conviction.


I accept that it isn’t anything that someone explores until they are caught up in the situation, and the jargon is not clear until you explore it.
 

rufus

Well-known member
Thanks again for you in depth answer - I was not being pedantic - it is the law that is pedantic and people are prosecuted on arguments about the finer detail every day.

I actually thought until my court case that my DR50 was a drink driving offence, it was the courts decision that has confused matters, that and being unable to get my renewal from the DVLA due to change of address, this would state if I am a HRO or not in the DVLAs eyes.

I pointed out that it is far from clear what constitutes a drink driving offence as the courts and DVLA do not agree with what a drink driving offence is. When I was not disqualified for 3 years due to it not being a drink driving offence in court - that of course made me think I am not a HRO as the court did not class a DR50 as drink driving offence.

I also only mentioned my DR50 as that code was not stated in the link you provided from this site, only DR40, so I assumed that as that code (DR50) was not stated it was only the DR40 that was applicable.

If it was stated clearly on the DVLA website that if you are convicted of 2 of the following offence codes in 10 years you are classed as a HRO, that is clear - no misunderstanding, perhaps the DD website could add some extra info on the HRO section stating the following codes are classed as drink driving offences by the DVLA.
 

price1367

TTC Group
“When I was not disqualified for 3 years due to it not being a drink driving offence in court“
That is not correct. It IS a drink drive offence, it just happens to be not a relevant drink drive offence for the purpose of the court having to award a minimum 3 year ban. Different legislation says that it IS relevant for the later purposes of the HRO process.
I don’t think you have followed my previous analogy. As a new driver the court do not revoke your licence for no insurance, they give 6 points, that is what the law tells them to do. Once that has happened, another law tells DVLA to revoke the new drivers licence. Why don’t the court revoke the licence? That is not their function, they are told to award points and a fine.
 

rufus

Well-known member
Thanks again, I seem to have misinterpreted what happened in the court then but the clerk did say its not drink driving its being in charge to correct the judge when they were sentencing but I accept you are right and what was said in the court was wrong.
 

price1367

TTC Group
I don’t blame you for being confused. I only understand the situation because of my years involved with the subject!
 

rufus

Well-known member
Hi price, I have found this (screenshot below) written and edited by the DVLA which may be of interest - it states that the courts inform the DVLA of HRO.

1603370068856.png
 

price1367

TTC Group
even that is not strictly correct.
“The courts notify DVLA of the result of every drink drive court case, and the DVLA apply the HRO process if relevant“ is the proper wording as the HRO process is nothing to do with the courts.

if you read the article, it is written in the context of the HRO process, saying that is what happens, but If you read an article about drink Drive disqualification, it would say what I indicated above, they courts notify DVLA of all disqualifications, and points for that matter.
Not sure why you are continuing with your quest, when what happens has been clearly shown to you and was correct in your case.
 
Last edited:

Forum Moderator

Staff member
Hi price, I have found this (screenshot below) written and edited by the DVLA which may be of interest - it states that the courts inform the DVLA of HRO.

View attachment 197

Its more of a case that the courts inform the DVLA that a person was banned for x amount of months and provide details of the offence and alcohol level if applicable rather than inform the DVLA that a person is a high risk offender (or not).
 

rufus

Well-known member
no quest - just showing how the information written and edited by the DVLA as this article was, is incorrect, confusing and at odds with what you all know and have stated - this is what we drink drivers have to contend with when getting correct info even from the DVLA themselves
 

price1367

TTC Group
Based on your logic, If you read an article about diabetes, and it said “people with diabetes are referred to hospital” You could infer that people with, say, kidney stones are not referred to hospital because it says people with diabetes are referred.
In the context of which the article you referred to it is written, It can be construed as correct, but it does not say “the courts notify DVLA of ONLY HRO offenders.” They also inform DVLA of non HRO’s, different types of disqualifications and also points.

You cannot search for wording that suits how you would like to interpret the law, the law has to be looked at in totality and in some cases one Act supersedes another one. That is why a little bit of knowledge is dangerous
After all, the magistrates in your case wanted to give you a 3 year ban because you had 2 drink driving offences in 10 years.
on your reckoning that is correct... fortunately for you, the legal advisor knew more about the law as a totality and was able to advise the magistrate that what was obvious to him was, in fact, incorrect.

all you have to do is read the booklet on getting your licence back after disqualification and the position is clearly stated.

Please move on. I will not bother replying to further discussion on this as the situation has been made abundantly clear in the previous posts.
 
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top