View Full Version : driving licence
my OH has had a letter today from DVLA telling that his photo on his driving licence has to be renewed, it has to be done every ten years.While I agree with this, as we do change alot over ten years (unfortunately!), I do object to the £20 its gonna cost us to do it!! He phoned them to object to having to pay it and was told that if he didnt do it,he will be arrested for driving with no licence and as he is a hgv driver,he has no choice!! :mad::mad:
Recently did mine and think it`s outragous that we have to pay £20 for it. When I was told I wasn`t allowed to drive due to my surgery DVLA told me to send back my licence with the raft of forms they sent me. No chance I said incase they want to charge me another £20 to get it back once I`m passed fit.
I recently had to renew my photo too and it just so happened I wouldn't be able to get it back in time for my flight to Bristol where I'd be needing photo ID. My passport expired this year and I've not renewed it as I'm not anticipating flying abroad in the near future and it costs a fortune to renew so I was pretty gutted I'd have to find an alternative ID for my flight. Spend £21 on a new CitizenID card and ended up receiving my new drivers licence back in time before my flight!!![evil] Typical, eh - £41 spent on drivers licence and new ID card. But at least I look a bit better in my new photo than I did 10 years ago. ;)
kmahon2001
22-Aug-09, 17:50
I think this is appalling too. When I first got my licence in 1988 it was valid until I reach the age of 70, and I would only have to renew it when I reached that age, or if I changed address.
However, when I did change address I was forced to get a photo licence. I had no choice, as that is all they issue now, and no one is allowed to choose otherwise.
The expiry date on my new photo licence was shown as 2012 instead of 20*# (note I'm not embarrassed about my age, but I don't want to give too much personal information away over the internet;)). All of a sudden, I have to pay £20 every 10 years to renew my licence instead of my licence lasting me until my 70th birthday. This is a total cheek.
Why is it that you can replace your driving licence if you change your name, you move house, or your reach the age of 70 without having to pay for it, but because your photo is 10 years old, you have to pay £20 for the privilege of being issued with a card with an up to date photo on it?
I know someone who has just had to renew her licence because she has reached the age of 70 and it hasn't cost her a thing. She still had a paper licence, although she too has now had to get a photo licence.
I do see the reason behind replacing the photo licence every 10 years, but I don't see why we should have to pay for it, when there are many other circumstances where your licence is replaced without charge.
And as for them saying that if you don't renew your photocard you will not be legally permitted to drive, this is quite simply disgraceful. I am licenced to drive until I reach 70, unless ill health or injury changes my abilities in this regard. They have no right to revoke my licence and make it last only for 10 years at a time. If I had remained in my previous house until I reached 70 I would never have had to replace my licence at all until my 70th birthday and I would be quite legally driving up till that date.
These photo licences are a total con anyway (not to mention a complete waste of time and resources) because they aren't even accepted as valid proof of eligibility to drive. If you are asked to produce your driving licence, it's the paper bit they want to see, not the photo card. This is just a sneaky way of getting us all to carry identity cards without us realising it.[disgust]
My in-laws do not have a photo licence, which they have had for years and years and years, so do have not had to renew it . I find it unfair that I have to pay £20 to renew my licence when they can sit tight and do nothing in any shape or form to renew it, yet it has been said that if you do not renew the photo licence (even though you have the paper licence) and the police stop you, you will be arrested/charged! Yet if they stop my in-laws who do not have a photographic licence (but have a paper licence like me) they will not be arrested/charged. Talk about rules for some and other rules for others.
northener
22-Aug-09, 18:54
My in-laws do not have a photo licence, which they have had for years and years and years, so do have not had to renew it . I find it unfair that I have to pay £20 to renew my licence when they can sit tight and do nothing in any shape or form to renew it, yet it has been said that if you do not renew the photo licence (even though you have the paper licence) and the police stop you, you will be arrested/charged! Yet if they stop my in-laws who do not have a photographic licence (but have a paper licence like me) they will not be arrested/charged. Talk about rules for some and other rules for others.
Eh?
When Photo licences were introduced, it was decided that anyone who already held any licence of any description prior to the start date of the new Photo Licence would not be asked to change until some physical change took place such as change of category or address.
This was simply a matter of logistics and administration...having some 7 or 8 million licence holders all returning their licences to get a new Photo version at the same time wasn't going to be a good use of time or resouces.:Razz
It's £20, not £200. That's 3.8p per week over the life of the licence.......
This is just a sneaky way of getting us all to carry identity cards without us realising it.[disgust]
Ta da!
Kerchung
northener
22-Aug-09, 20:30
Next person who says "Kerching" (or "Kerchung") gets shot.
Ooops...wrong thread.;)
Eh?
When Photo licences were introduced, it was decided that anyone who already held any licence of any description prior to the start date of the new Photo Licence would not be asked to change until some physical change took place such as change of category or address.
This was simply a matter of logistics and administration...having some 7 or 8 million licence holders all returning their licences to get a new Photo version at the same time wasn't going to be a good use of time or resouces.:Razz
It's £20, not £200. That's 3.8p per week over the life of the licence.......
its not the amount,its the point that I havent got a choice!! Just yet another goverment money maker!!
Next person who says "Kerching" (or "Kerchung") gets shot.
Kerrrrr................
northener
23-Aug-09, 17:03
its not the amount,its the point that I havent got a choice!! Just yet another goverment money maker!!
You choose to have a driving licence, nobody forces it upon you. So therefore some contribution should be expected on your part, surely? I don't see why everyone in the country should subsidise someone who holds a volountary certification.
Payiong for ID cards - now that would be different......[evil]
Kerrrrr................
Loaded and aimed.......:Razz
You choose to have a driving licence, nobody forces it upon you. So therefore some contribution should be expected on your part, surely? I don't see why everyone in the country should subsidise someone who holds a volountary certification.
Exactly, driving is a choice not a given.
I dont grudge paying to renew the photo for a license I choose to have.
I grudge paying for a passport though which is much more expensive than a driving license and you also need to pay for it to be renewed, again at a much higher price than a driving license.
I dont need a passport so luckily I dont have to pay. :D
These photo licences are a total con anyway (not to mention a complete waste of time and resources) because they aren't even accepted as valid proof of eligibility to drive. If you are asked to produce your driving licence, it's the paper bit they want to see, not the photo card. This is just a sneaky way of getting us all to carry identity cards without us realising it.[disgust]
I've never been asked for the paper bit, its always the photo ID that I've been asked to show.
But then it depends on who's asking for it.
kmahon2001
24-Aug-09, 15:07
These photo licences are a total con anyway (not to mention a complete waste of time and resources) because they aren't even accepted as valid proof of eligibility to drive. If you are asked to produce your driving licence, it's the paper bit they want to see, not the photo card. This is just a sneaky way of getting us all to carry identity cards without us realising it.[disgust]
I've never been asked for the paper bit, its always the photo ID that I've been asked to show.
But then it depends on who's asking for it.
If you need proof of ID, such as when opening a bank account etc (even when trying to get a passport) the photocard is accepted, because it is only being used to prove that you are who you say you are.
If, however, you need to prove that you are licenced to drive a certain type of vehicle, or that you haven't got any endorsements etc, you have to produce the paper licence. If the police have pulled you over and ask you to produce your licence, it's the paper licence they want - the paper bit is the actual licence, not the photocard.
As I said, the photocard is just a form of ID card that is being sneakily introduced.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.