Drivers who reach 12 penalty points for offences committed during the same three-year period face a mandatory driving disqualification under totting up. For many people, the only potential escape route is an exceptional hardship application. On paper, this can appear straightforward: show the court that the consequences of a ban would be unusually severe, and the Bench may exercise its discretion not to disqualify. In reality, however, exceptional hardship is one of the most uncertain and unpredictable areas of motoring law.
One of the main reasons for this unpredictability is that exceptional hardship is not defined in any statute. There is no checklist, very little statutory guidance and no legal test that must be applied in the same way from court to court. As a result, decisions vary widely depending on the particular Bench or District Judge hearing the case. What one court considers exceptional, another may regard as no more than the ordinary consequences of losing the right to drive.
A recent example involving television presenter Kirsty Gallacher demonstrates this point clearly. She was disqualified at High Wycombe Magistrates’ Court despite putting forward what many people might consider exceptional circumstances. These included childcare responsibilities, transport limitations and ongoing medical issues. Although this case has no binding effect on any other court, it does highlight an important truth: another court on another day might have reached a different conclusion.
The outcome turned entirely on the view taken by the tribunal hearing the case.
This is where many motorists come unstuck. Clients often believe that genuine difficulty, stress or inconvenience — such as struggling to get to work, caring for children or supporting a family member — will automatically amount to exceptional hardship. The courts, however, expect something more. Hardship to the driver alone will rarely be enough. Magistrates frequently look for evidence that third parties will be severely affected, or that the consequences cannot reasonably be managed in any other way.
Another consistent pitfall is a lack of detail. Courts expect clear evidence rather than generalised statements. Medical reports, employer letters, financial information, childcare schedules and transport assessments all strengthen a case. Without this sort of supporting material, even a compelling story may be viewed as ordinary rather than exceptional. Some applications fail because Magistrates conclude that the issues can be “managed” through taxis, lifts from others, changes to working patterns or temporary adjustments at home.
The Gallacher case illustrates just how easily this can happen. While it is hard not to feel sympathy for her position, the court ultimately decided that the difficulties she described were not truly exceptional. Importantly, this does not mean that her circumstances could never amount to exceptional hardship — it simply means that the Bench before which she appeared was not persuaded. Another court may well have taken a different view. That is precisely why cases like this serve as a practical reminder of the risks involved.
For motorists facing a totting-up disqualification, the key point is that an exceptional hardship plea is always discretionary and never guaranteed. The outcome depends not just on the facts, but on how effectively the case is prepared and presented — and, unavoidably, on the approach of the particular court hearing it.
Exceptional hardship can and often does succeed with the right evidence, it remains a challenging argument. The Court’s decision in the case of Kirsty Gallacher highlights how easily even a well-intentioned, carefully explained argument can still be rejected. Ultimately, the phrase “exceptional hardship” means different things to different courts, and success often hinges on the smallest details.
Call us now for expert advice or leave an online contact form if you are at risk of being disqualified for totting up.
