Can I sue the dvla?
Discussion
I've read the article & it's not really clear if they were the only complaints made (highly unlikely) or that they were just some selected at random. I personally know of half a dozen people who have had their lives turned upside down by wrong decisions by DVLA, none of these have complained to the ombudsman, so I would think that there are probably hundreds or thousands that have been affected.
tony wright said:
Just a thought, but don't they have medication for seizures? If so, would it not be possible to return to your GP and ask to voluntarily go on them for your required period, thus negating the 2% chance they mentioned.
I fully see your valid point, but I am very uncomfortable with taking any form of medication for something I don't actually suffer with, and thus far never have.From the day of the accident and injuries I sustained I have never been on any medication other than strong headache tablets, and this was only for the week that I was in hospital in Belfast. The fractures on my skull, and bleeds on my brain were left to self heal. I assume this is the norm? Luckily they did. My neuro consultant and GP have never felt the need to put me on seizure medication as I have never suffered from a seizure, or in their opinion been at risk of this. It has only ever been, 'someone' on the DVLA medical panel, whos name I still do not know that has classed me as a seizure risk.
The only people ever to put me in the seizure risk bracket were the DVLA medical panel?
Once they had done this I contacted them to ask them who specifically, and how this person/persons had come to this decision? I was told on the phone that I was not allowed to speak directly to those involved, only my doctor or neuro consultant could do this. I was told I could only communicate by letter, not even email??? Every time I wrote to them with regards to my case, there would be a 4-6 week timescale before I got a reply, and when I raised these timescale issues they just said, "There is a backlog."
They really are a disgrace. I could go on, and on, and on, but already have on here and don't want to bore people over and over again with it. I must admit though, that based on the news yesterday I am a little bit hopeful that it may be worth striking whilst the iron is hot and having 1 more go at getting my LGV licence back.
GC8 said:
tony wright said:
Totally understand, but I didn't actually mention taking them 
and it would get you back to work.n
I might consider this Neil. Trouser the prescription: it isn't as though they check your blood for proof that youre taking them. and it would get you back to work.nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Just been reading the Parliamentary Ombudsman's report, I find it very interesting, and very damning of the DVLA and the Drivers Medical Groups failings.
If anyone does have a read through this, pages 34/35 are of particular interest to me. I actually thought I was reading my own story.
Just been reading the Parliamentary Ombudsman's report, I find it very interesting, and very damning of the DVLA and the Drivers Medical Groups failings.
If anyone does have a read through this, pages 34/35 are of particular interest to me. I actually thought I was reading my own story.
Edited by chilistrucker on Saturday 22 October 21:56
The worst bit is the comment right at the end.
The Department for Transport has accepted most of our recommendations. It has not agreed to introduce arrangements aimed at others who may have been affected by the failings we have found. The Department for Transport’s response has been to say it will review previous complaints in line with our findings using its existing complaints process. This approach does not address the many other people potentially affected who have not previously complained.
The Department for Transport has also not agreed to produce a set of evidence-based standards for assessing fitness to drive. In response to our report it has said its current standards will remain subject to continuous improvement. It is not clear to us how DVLA will be able to respond to the problems we have identified in this report recurring for other drivers in future without reviewing it’s current standards.
In other words the DfT wants to make sure that the DVLA is protected from having to be truly accountable. Shameful, but no more than one might expect from the Department which is ultimately responsible for this autocratic 'do-as-you-likey' Agency. Ministers come and go while Sir Humphrey wins again.
Ombudsman's report said:
We think Parliament will want to satisfy itself that the findings from this report have been acted upon by DVLA and the Department for Transport and specifically that action will be taken to address the two recommendations that they have so far not accepted.
The recommendations it wouldn't acceptThe Department for Transport has accepted most of our recommendations. It has not agreed to introduce arrangements aimed at others who may have been affected by the failings we have found. The Department for Transport’s response has been to say it will review previous complaints in line with our findings using its existing complaints process. This approach does not address the many other people potentially affected who have not previously complained.
The Department for Transport has also not agreed to produce a set of evidence-based standards for assessing fitness to drive. In response to our report it has said its current standards will remain subject to continuous improvement. It is not clear to us how DVLA will be able to respond to the problems we have identified in this report recurring for other drivers in future without reviewing it’s current standards.
In other words the DfT wants to make sure that the DVLA is protected from having to be truly accountable. Shameful, but no more than one might expect from the Department which is ultimately responsible for this autocratic 'do-as-you-likey' Agency. Ministers come and go while Sir Humphrey wins again.
chilistrucker said:
GC8 said:
tony wright said:
Totally understand, but I didn't actually mention taking them and it would get you back to work.n
I might consider this Neil. Trouser the prescription: it isn't as though they check your blood for proof that youre taking them. and it would get you back to work.n
ds on a weekly basis so you guys truly have my sympathies. A wee word of warning. If you go down the road of getting a prescription from your doc the DVLA can then put that on your record that you are susceptible to seizures and require medication because your own doctor said so!. God knows what they will do after that, so have a serious think before you decide to do that, because it might just bite you on the arse very hard.J
That would be my major concern. I can see others reasoning, as if it meant it would get me my licence back I would consider, but knowing my luck it would bite me on the arse. I read the full ombudsmans report yesterday, very interesting and clearly highlights the huge failings of the DMG:DVLA!!!
I have now emailed the DMG direct,(again), my MP and the ombudsman.
Is it worth emailing the Minister of Transport?
Any other avenues I should consider?
I have now emailed the DMG direct,(again), my MP and the ombudsman.
Is it worth emailing the Minister of Transport?
Any other avenues I should consider?
Just as a matter of interest and to demonstrate how bad the beaurocratic stupidity gets with the DVLA. I restore classic cars and there are a substantial amount of cars now coming back into the country from abroad. I have two in at the moment; a Mercedes from the States and an Escort from S.A.
To enable these cars to be used here, they obviously have to be registered and given a UK number. To do this the DVLA insist that the car is MOTd BEFORE the registration process begins. This means having it trailered to the MOT station, because you can't get it insured to drive on the road without registration, and it is illegal to drive on the road anyway without a registration number.
The MOT tester then cannot pass it without registration plates being present, which of course you cannot have made without the number and registration document. So it has to be trailered back as a fail. They then say they will register it, at which point you have to wait for the documents to arrive to get your plates made and then have the MOT done all over again.
Total stupidity and madness. A complete waste of everyone's time and clearly pointless.
J
To enable these cars to be used here, they obviously have to be registered and given a UK number. To do this the DVLA insist that the car is MOTd BEFORE the registration process begins. This means having it trailered to the MOT station, because you can't get it insured to drive on the road without registration, and it is illegal to drive on the road anyway without a registration number.
The MOT tester then cannot pass it without registration plates being present, which of course you cannot have made without the number and registration document. So it has to be trailered back as a fail. They then say they will register it, at which point you have to wait for the documents to arrive to get your plates made and then have the MOT done all over again.
Total stupidity and madness. A complete waste of everyone's time and clearly pointless.
J
jith said:
The MOT tester then cannot pass it without registration plates being present
Yes, he can. And he should.p142 of the tester's manual, section 6.3
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Tester's Manual said:
INFORMATION
Unregistered vehicles need not be fitted with registration plates.
This inspection does not apply to foreign registered, diplomatic or military vehicles.
Unregistered vehicles need not be fitted with registration plates.
This inspection does not apply to foreign registered, diplomatic or military vehicles.
jith said:
Total stupidity and madness. A complete waste of everyone's time and clearly pointless.
Yup. Basically, your tester is an idiot who's making you jump through unnecessary hoops because he doesn't understand his job.chilistrucker said:
That would be my major concern. I can see others reasoning, as if it meant it would get me my licence back I would consider, but knowing my luck it would bite me on the arse. I read the full ombudsmans report yesterday, very interesting and clearly highlights the huge failings of the DMG:DVLA!!!
I have now emailed the DMG direct,(again), my MP and the ombudsman.
Is it worth emailing the Minister of Transport?
Any other avenues I should consider?
bear with me but this may be a long shot, but worth trying maybe?I have now emailed the DMG direct,(again), my MP and the ombudsman.
Is it worth emailing the Minister of Transport?
Any other avenues I should consider?
i was involved with the unions inside natwest a few years back, and i was involved with an employment tribunal about a guy who was suffering from stress and long term sick.
the gp was assessing him every few weeks and signing him off, the bank wanted to pension him off etc.
at the tribunal the gp obviously was irked by having to attend and after 40 minutes of round the houses questions from the banks medical officer, simply asked him 'are you questioning my integrity'. as i understand it, for one doctor to question another doctors integrity (i think) is a big deal and the banks case promptly collapsed as the bank officer said no, case closed.
might be a shot asking your GP or surgeon to ask if they are doing the same as your clinicians will be well aware of your case and the risks involved with you driving etc, when the dvla haven't even examined you (not read the whole thread).
Correct, the Dvla have never asked, or given me the chance to be examined in the 3 years this has been on going. I haven't spoke to my neuro consultant for 2 years as even though he tried twice on my behalf, and was overruled both times, he said there was no more he could do for me if the DMG failed to listen.
From the time the DMG made their decision to overrule my consultant they have proved to be nothing other than awkward, incompetent, and deliberately slow in any form of communication. I have never been allowed to speak to or been given the name of those that made these decisions and they point blank refuse to speak with me or communicate via emails, everything has to be done by post. There turn around time in responding to every letter I wrote to them was 4-5 weeks.
Earlier this year they said they would only deal with my GP direct. That was hard enough on its own as my GP said why would they listen to him when they point blank refused the neuro consultant who had passed me fit to drive.
He did eventually ring them, but they asked him to prove 100% that I was less than the 2% seizure risk, (remember I have still never had a seizure in my life) and as my GP said he can't prove 100% that anyone is less than s 2% seizure risk that was my case closed.
That is why I'd pretty much given up as I had tried everything, in light of the ombudsmans report though, perhaps it's worth 2 last try?
From the time the DMG made their decision to overrule my consultant they have proved to be nothing other than awkward, incompetent, and deliberately slow in any form of communication. I have never been allowed to speak to or been given the name of those that made these decisions and they point blank refuse to speak with me or communicate via emails, everything has to be done by post. There turn around time in responding to every letter I wrote to them was 4-5 weeks.
Earlier this year they said they would only deal with my GP direct. That was hard enough on its own as my GP said why would they listen to him when they point blank refused the neuro consultant who had passed me fit to drive.
He did eventually ring them, but they asked him to prove 100% that I was less than the 2% seizure risk, (remember I have still never had a seizure in my life) and as my GP said he can't prove 100% that anyone is less than s 2% seizure risk that was my case closed.
That is why I'd pretty much given up as I had tried everything, in light of the ombudsmans report though, perhaps it's worth 2 last try?
TooMany2cvs said:
jith said:
The MOT tester then cannot pass it without registration plates being present
Yes, he can. And he should.p142 of the tester's manual, section 6.3
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Tester's Manual said:
INFORMATION
Unregistered vehicles need not be fitted with registration plates.
This inspection does not apply to foreign registered, diplomatic or military vehicles.
Unregistered vehicles need not be fitted with registration plates.
This inspection does not apply to foreign registered, diplomatic or military vehicles.
jith said:
Total stupidity and madness. A complete waste of everyone's time and clearly pointless.
Yup. Basically, your tester is an idiot who's making you jump through unnecessary hoops because he doesn't understand his job.J
jith said:
TooMany2cvs said:
jith said:
The MOT tester then cannot pass it without registration plates being present
Yes, he can. And he should.p142 of the tester's manual, section 6.3
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Tester's Manual said:
INFORMATION
Unregistered vehicles need not be fitted with registration plates.
This inspection does not apply to foreign registered, diplomatic or military vehicles.
Unregistered vehicles need not be fitted with registration plates.
This inspection does not apply to foreign registered, diplomatic or military vehicles.
jith said:
Total stupidity and madness. A complete waste of everyone's time and clearly pointless.
Yup. Basically, your tester is an idiot who's making you jump through unnecessary hoops because he doesn't understand his job.J
It even turns up on the DVLA's "top 5 things we're asked" here top 5
jith said:
I'll tell you what; you give me your phone number or your address and I'll tell my tester you think he's an idiot and give him your contact details. He is very good at sorting out smartasses like you. In the meantime I would appreciate you staying away from my posts, no matter what your opinion; you offend me.
While you were so busy taking offence, did you actually bother to read the information I provided you with?Your tester is the one who is making life hard for you, not DVLA (or, even DVSA), simply because he does not know his job.
Oh, and - by the way - yes, you can drive foreign-registered vehicles to a pre-booked MOT, just as you can drive untested and SORNed UK-reg ones. So all of your complaints are actually just baseless whinges.
jith said:
TooMany2cvs said:
jith said:
The MOT tester then cannot pass it without registration plates being present
Yes, he can. And he should.p142 of the tester's manual, section 6.3
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Tester's Manual said:
INFORMATION
Unregistered vehicles need not be fitted with registration plates.
This inspection does not apply to foreign registered, diplomatic or military vehicles.
Unregistered vehicles need not be fitted with registration plates.
This inspection does not apply to foreign registered, diplomatic or military vehicles.
jith said:
Total stupidity and madness. A complete waste of everyone's time and clearly pointless.
Yup. Basically, your tester is an idiot who's making you jump through unnecessary hoops because he doesn't understand his job.J
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff