Solicitor Mahmun Kaderi

09/06/2026

06/06/2026

THREE COURTS. THREE CLIENTS. THREE VICTORIES.

Accused of failing to identify the driver?

Think again before pleading guilty.

In just three days, Solicitor Mahmun Kaderi and the specialist motoring offence team at Luris Vince Solicitors secured three consecutive victories for clients facing allegations of failing to identify the driver under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Horsham Magistrates’ Court – Success
City of London Magistrates’ Court – Success
Willesden Magistrates’ Court – Success

All three clients found Not Guilty
Defence Costs Orders awarded
Driving licences protected
Cases concluded swiftly following successful legal submissions

Many motorists believe that once they are accused of failing to identify the driver, conviction is inevitable.

It is not.

The law requires the prosecution to prove its case. Where the evidence is lacking, procedures have not been followed correctly, or a valid defence exists, the court must acquit.

These victories demonstrate the importance of obtaining specialist legal advice before making any decision about your case.

Your licence.
Your livelihood.
Your future.

Do not assume there is no defence.

If you have been accused of:

Failing to Identify the Driver (Section 172)
Speeding
Totting Up Disqualification
Mobile Phone Offences
Driving Without Insurance
Drink or Drug Driving

Contact us today.

Mahmun Kaderi
Solicitor /Director– Luris Vince Solicitors

📞 07576 287043
36 Alie Street, London E1 8DA

Proven Results. Trusted Advice. Expert Representation.

*Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case depends on its own facts and merit

06/05/2026

Tomorrow morning is our chance to support someone who truly knows and serves our community.
Please come out early and vote for Green Party candidate Moin Kaderi in Gascoigne Ward.
Every single vote matters.
Please also remind your family and neighbours before leaving home.
Vote Green for a safer, cleaner and fairer Gascoigne.

20/12/2025

DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE… OR SO THEY SAID!

A businessman’s insurance was cancelled in August 2025, yet two and a half months later, police stopped him claiming he had no valid cover.

He came to Luris Vince Solicitors, and thanks to the expert work of Mahmun Kaderi, the court saw the full picture:
No penalty points – licence remains clean
Completely cleared


Venue: City of London Magistrates’ Court
Hearing Date: 19 December 2025

Justice delivered. Licence saved. Life back on track.

Call Mahmun Kaderi, Luris Vince Solicitors – 07576 287043 for expert advice.

Faced a similar problem? Share your story and spread the word!

26/10/2025

A positive outcome today at Lavender Hill Magistrates’ Court.
24/10/2025
Two motorists were facing allegations arising from a mix-up over driver identification and a minor speeding matter. After careful representation, all charges against one client were withdrawn, and the other received only a minimal outcome.

A fair and proportionate resolution — the right result after proper preparation.

Luris Vince Solicitors – defending motorists with clarity and precision.

20/09/2025

We Saved Our Client from a Driving Ban – Another Victory for Luris Vince Solicitors

Willesden Magistrates’ Court – 29 August 2025

I’m proud to share that we successfully defended a client at risk of a 6-month driving disqualification under the totting-up provisions.

The case was serious: the client had 9 points already, and a red-light offence would have pushed him to 12, triggering an automatic ban. But thanks to our preparation, legal strategy and courtroom advocacy, the court accepted our exceptional hardship application. The client kept his licence.

Our client is a hardworking tradesman whose entire livelihood depends on driving.
He supports a young family and is the sponsor for his wife’s immigration visa.
He also helps care for an elderly dependent.
Disqualification would have had devastating consequences — but we made sure justice was done.

At Luris Vince Solicitors, we know what’s at stake. We don’t just handle cases — we fight for people’s futures.

If you’re facing a driving offence, contact us for expert representation from start to finish.
36 Alie Street, London

Mahmun Kaderi
Solicitor | Director
Luris Vince Solicitors

11/08/2025

NOT GUILTY – Motoring Charge Defended

Another win for Luris Vince Solicitors!
Our client was charged with Failing to give driver information (s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988).

After a contested hearing at Romford Magistrates’ Court, the court found our client NOT GUILTY and awarded a Defendant’s Costs Order.

💼 Led by Principal Solicitor Mahmun Kaderi, we continue to deliver results for motorists facing prosecution.

30/07/2025

Major Court Win – 3 Charges Dropped, Points Only for One

We recently acted for Mr LV, who faced four criminal charges at Horsham Magistrates’ Court:
• Careless driving
• Failing to stop after an accident
• Failing to report the incident within 24 hours
• Failing to provide driver information (s.172)

Thanks to careful preparation and firm negotiation, we successfully persuaded the Crown Prosecution Service to withdraw three of the four charges—including all allegations related to the accident itself.

The only charge pursued was failure to provide driver details. Mr LV, following full advice, entered a guilty plea to that single charge. The court imposed 6 penalty points and a financial penalty of £582, payable by instalments. Crucially, no conviction was recorded for careless driving or failing to stop.

This result protected our client from the reputational and legal consequences of multiple convictions. Cases like these demonstrate the importance of early legal advice and knowing how to challenge weak or overlapping charges at the right time.

—
M. Kaderi
Solicitor & Director
Luris Vince Solicitors | London

29/07/2025

Exceptional Hardship Appeal – Driving Ban Lifted

Client: Mr Daniel Grant (pseudonym)
Court: Croydon Crown Court
Date: 28 July 2025
Outcome: Disqualification Removed, Costs Awarded
Solicitor: Mahmun Kaderi, Luris Vince Solicitors

Mr Daniel Grant came to us after receiving a six-month driving ban for multiple speeding offences under a local 20mph traffic order in South London. He had previously represented himself at the Magistrates’ Court and was unsuccessful in persuading the court not to impose the disqualification.

Following our instruction, I met with Mr Grant, examined the court bundle in detail, and took full instructions in preparation for the Crown Court appeal. He accepted the underlying offences but sought to demonstrate that a driving ban would cause exceptional hardship.

Mr Grant, aged 62, is undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer. One of the side effects of his treatment is the urgent and frequent need to urinate—something that cannot be managed practically or with dignity on public transport. His immune system is also significantly weakened, putting him at increased risk of serious illness when travelling in crowded public spaces.

His wife, who suffers from mobility issues, relies on him for transport to medical appointments. In addition, she cares for her 90-year-old mother, but Mr Grant is the one who drives her to and from her mother’s home. Without his licence, both women would be left without the support they depend on.

Mr Grant also drives for a living as a private hire driver. The disqualification had effectively cut off his only means of income at a time when his options were limited due to ill health.

At the Crown Court hearing, he gave live evidence and was cross-examined. The judge accepted that removing his ability to drive would cause real hardship not only to him but to vulnerable members of his household. The appeal was allowed, the disqualification lifted, and a costs order granted in his favour.

29/05/2025

Special Reasons and Exceptional Hardship: A Practical Comparison

When driving offences are dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court, two legal concepts are commonly relied upon to avoid or reduce disqualification: Special Reasons and Exceptional Hardship. Though often confused, these arguments serve very different purposes and are grounded in different aspects of the law.

Special Reasons
Where Special Reasons are claimed, the court’s attention is drawn to the specific circumstances under which the offence occurred. These arguments are not concerned with the personal situation of the defendant but rather with the event itself that led to the commission of the offence.

According to *R v Wickens [1958] 42 Cr App R 236*, for Special Reasons to be considered, the following must be shown:
- A mitigating factor must be present.
- That factor must not constitute a legal defence.
- The reason must be directly related to the offence.
- It must be something the court ought to take into account when sentencing.

Instances where Special Reasons have been accepted include driving only a very short distance, being misled about insurance validity, or responding to a genuine emergency. However, factors such as job loss, drinking without knowing how long alcohol remains in the system, or driving after a social occasion typically do not qualify.

Exceptional Hardship
In contrast, Exceptional Hardship arguments arise under the ‘totting up’ rules when a driver accumulates 12 or more penalty points within three years. The focus here is on the personal and third-party consequences of disqualification.

As set out in *section 35(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988*, Exceptional Hardship must be proven to exist and must be more than mere inconvenience. Arguments previously used within three years cannot be repeated, and routine claims about work or income loss will not be sufficient unless their impact can be shown to be exceptional.

Commonly accepted scenarios include the threat of job loss affecting a family, a dependent requiring ongoing medical transport, or a business collapse that would affect others. Each argument must be supported by documentary evidence and must be shown to the court on the balance of probabilities.

Conclusion
Though both routes can provide relief from disqualification, their application and legal basis differ significantly. Special Reasons relate strictly to the facts of the offence, while Exceptional Hardship focuses on the broader impact of the penalty. Understanding this distinction is essential for effective advocacy in motoring offence cases.

¹ R v Wickens [1958] 42 Cr App R 236. ² Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, s.35(4).