Example 1:
Take a case of a driver guilty of motoring offences (for convenience, let's assume LC20 & IN10) when driving on a non-EEA international driving permit.
The Fixed Penalty system is only applicable to holders of UK licences issued by the DVLA at Swansea. Non–UK licences cannot be endorsed with penalty points and therefore do not meet the requirements of the conditional offer. You have no alternative but to proceed by way of a Summons to a Court hearing.
The police has no jurisdiction to issue a FPN and the matter must be dealt with by the court, and therefore the offender will always receive a summons for the court.
Does that mean that such a driver will fall foul to the "general grounds of refusal" because the police has no jurisdiction to issue FPNs here, as compared to someone else driving with a UK license who was issued FPNs by the police because they could do so because they (police) had jurisdiction?
Example 2:
Another case is that of a driver with a UK license endorsed with 9 (or more) points. He is also guilty of LC20 & IN10. The police will not issue a FPN to such a driver because by accepting the same the driver will automatically face a "totting-up" ban of at least 6 months. Does it mean that this driver will fall foul to "general grounds of refusal" because the police are unable to issue FPNs and the offence must be dealt with through a summons by the court?
If you have 9 points or more on your licence, the Police will not issue a Fixed Penalty Notice as by accepting same, the motorist would face a "totting up" ban of at least 6 months.
Likewise, for any conceivable reason that the police does not issue a FPN for an offence (no matter how minor it may be), it seems an offender will fall foul to the "general grounds of refusal" just because he will / has received a summons from the court!
Example 3:
What happens in the instance when a police officer does not have a FPN available. It is a piece of paper, so what if the officer has exhausted the pad?
Where an officer decides that a fixed penalty notice would be inappropriate or is not available, he may choose to deal with the offence by way of summons.
My suggestion:
If the police decides to not issue FPN (for any offence that a police can issue an FPN for), then based on the premise being offered here, the first thing that the offender must do (to not fall foul to "general grounds of refusal") is sue the police for discrimination!
BTW, summons from a court for a fixed penalty notice is aka "court issued FPN".
According to 322(1C):
(iv) they have, within the 24 months preceding the date of the application, been convicted of or admitted an offence for which they have received a non-custodial sentence or other out of court disposal that is recorded on their criminal record.
When interpreting the rule, it is also important not to lose focus on the latter part of the rule (text highlighted in red) rather than just focusing on "non-custodial sentence or out of court disposal". A summons from court does not necessarily mean a "criminal record" nor does paying a fine for a FPN ordered through summons of a court, though many people seem to believe so.
Hence, a blanket interpretation of the template statement:
If you plead guilty by post, you will normally be convicted by the court on the date shown in the summons. The court may put the case back for up to four weeks without having to tell you. The court will write to you soon after the hearing to tell you what sentence the magistrates have given you
is only applicable (in context of 322(1C)(iv)) only when such a conviction leads to a "criminal record".
Anyhow, not interested in getting into a never ending discussion, as has been my experience on the subject.
As already suggested, if in doubt, the OP should seek legal advice from a solicitor "competent" to deal in such matters.
