An incapacitated pensioner with severe dementia was prosecuted by the DVLA just one day after they were moved to a care home.
The unnamed pensioner, 83, stopped driving two years ago but kept a classic car, a red 1975 MG, which he stored in his garage.
He moved into a care home on October 11, 2023, and was contacted the following day by the DVLA, which accused him of letting his car insurance lapse.
The Evening Standard reported that he was then prosecuted by the service using a controversial court system.
The DVLA forged ahead with the prosecution despite being alerted by the pensioner’s daughter and issued him with a penalty charge.
The pensioner was prosecuted in the Single Justice Procedure, with his daughter providing evidence of his current state.
She explained her father, who lives in Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, was incapacitated with “severe dementia” and now receives full-time care in a north London home.
In a note to the court seen by the Standard, she explained that her father’s illness meant he did not possess the capacity to remember to insure his vehicle.
She wrote: “I am his daughter and have power of attorney. The vehicle was in a secure garage off premises.”
The note added: “My father lost his licence to drive over two years ago and we were unaware the classic MG was uninsured and he would not have the capacity to remember to insure it.”
The daughter claimed the Single Justice Procedure notice was the first indication there was an outstanding penalty charge, as “no previous request was found at his home address”.
The Single Justice Procedure is undertaken by magistrates who, with assistance from a legal adviser, decide summary-only, non-imprisonable and victimless offences.
The DVLA told the Standard it had not seen the mitigation letter when it was entered alongside a guilty plea and does not routinely look at correspondence included with such pleas.
The pensioner was ultimately not fined or punished for the lapsed insurance, a magistrate ruled.
But he will receive a criminal conviction as a result of the case, which the court decided behind closed doors.
