DVLA refusing licence for illness Sol/advice please
Discussion
This is for a friend. He had a brain aneurism 2 years ago. Is now fit and well and the DVLA have just written to him telling him they are removing his licence because he has epilespy. There is no foundation for this. Said friend went to Doctors after brain surgery ( plat coil in head) after he had had a couple of light headed incidents. Turns out after tests he is diabetic. This is now under control and he is fit and healthy. GP wrote to DVLA to say fit to drive, Consultant head man wrote to DVLA to say man is fine and safe to drive. My friend wants to appeal against their decision and has been told he can do this by taking the DVLA to the magistrates court. He has started the proceedings. Even though he currently has just lost his job does not qualify for legal aid and so has to self respresent, has also been advised that DVLA wont change their mind. As you can imagine he is devostated as he knows he isnt epleptic and can prove it.
1. Does anyone know if he can get a sol to represent him
2. Any other advice
any advice gratefully accepted.
1. Does anyone know if he can get a sol to represent him
2. Any other advice
any advice gratefully accepted.
A long time back a mate of mike knackered his wrist playing hockey.
He went to A&E and while he was there he fainted.
As they was no reason for the faint he was banned from driving for a year on health grounds in case he fainted while at the wheel.
12 months later had to get a Doctors letter saying he was fine, and the DVLA gave him his licence back.
I'm not sure quite how that related to your friends case – but it might help in some way.
He went to A&E and while he was there he fainted.
As they was no reason for the faint he was banned from driving for a year on health grounds in case he fainted while at the wheel.
12 months later had to get a Doctors letter saying he was fine, and the DVLA gave him his licence back.
I'm not sure quite how that related to your friends case – but it might help in some way.
I am not sure if there are some (innocent) details missing but as long as his doctor can prove to DVLA that he hasn't had any kind of episode/fit in the last year he should get his license back.
There is no reason they would/should not give it back if this was the case or at least engage in a more useful dialogue.
If his license was revoked then it can take longer but again should not be a problem in the grand scheme of things providing his doctor is onside and agrees.
The doctor is his legal consul if that makes sense and between him and the dvla should get a better understanding of what the issue is.
There explanation sounds a little vague but all things on the table should result in a positive dialogue.
There is no reason they would/should not give it back if this was the case or at least engage in a more useful dialogue.
If his license was revoked then it can take longer but again should not be a problem in the grand scheme of things providing his doctor is onside and agrees.
The doctor is his legal consul if that makes sense and between him and the dvla should get a better understanding of what the issue is.
There explanation sounds a little vague but all things on the table should result in a positive dialogue.
thanks Guys.
As far as i am aware,no one anywhere said epilepsy. my friend had one diabetic blackout before diagnosis and this has been recorded.Both consultant and |GP back him up. doesnt help in the meantime that he has to go to court to get his licence back, when it shouldnt have be removed in the first place.
As far as i am aware,no one anywhere said epilepsy. my friend had one diabetic blackout before diagnosis and this has been recorded.Both consultant and |GP back him up. doesnt help in the meantime that he has to go to court to get his licence back, when it shouldnt have be removed in the first place.
OP
I'm afraid to say I've been here twice, on both occasions my licence was returned within seven weeks, but it is hard work, and I've learnt to work with DVLA, their medical people are not the morons they first appear to be, far from it.
They will always err on the side of caution !
You and your friend will be very very surprised at just how little information they have to hand to make their decision on, it will be up to your friend to rectify this.
From my experience, somebody has told them your friend has epilepsy.
Once he is accused of this, he is guilty until proven innocent (I was accused of crashing a car due to the effects of diabetes ...... I didn't......but I had to prove that, just because it was the opinion of one poxy effing non medically qualified copper.
I think you can prove someone has epilepsy, I'm unsure if you can prove somebody doesn't, you'd be better off asking that stuff in the medical forum.
Your friends medical team are the way to go, DVLA will change their minds with your friends medical teams input, and you shouldn't need to go to court, although like your friend I threatened it, it didn't actually happen.
They suspended me for six months, but returned it after seven weeks, it's a slow old process.
The big thing here is to find who has told them, or eluded to by an obscure answer, that your friend has epilepsy.
It could just be a mistaken or unclear answer by one of his medical team.
I'm afraid to say I've been here twice, on both occasions my licence was returned within seven weeks, but it is hard work, and I've learnt to work with DVLA, their medical people are not the morons they first appear to be, far from it.
They will always err on the side of caution !
You and your friend will be very very surprised at just how little information they have to hand to make their decision on, it will be up to your friend to rectify this.
From my experience, somebody has told them your friend has epilepsy.
Once he is accused of this, he is guilty until proven innocent (I was accused of crashing a car due to the effects of diabetes ...... I didn't......but I had to prove that, just because it was the opinion of one poxy effing non medically qualified copper.
I think you can prove someone has epilepsy, I'm unsure if you can prove somebody doesn't, you'd be better off asking that stuff in the medical forum.
Your friends medical team are the way to go, DVLA will change their minds with your friends medical teams input, and you shouldn't need to go to court, although like your friend I threatened it, it didn't actually happen.
They suspended me for six months, but returned it after seven weeks, it's a slow old process.
The big thing here is to find who has told them, or eluded to by an obscure answer, that your friend has epilepsy.
It could just be a mistaken or unclear answer by one of his medical team.
Edited by Nigel Worc's on Monday 14th November 21:48
Don't know if it helps but my brother had fits a few years ago.
Doctors never got to the bottom of the cause, but were asked if it was epilepsy. The answer was there is no test to prove/disprove epilepsy, but it could be that.
Thankfully the fits stopped about 2 years ago before the cause was found.
Doctors never got to the bottom of the cause, but were asked if it was epilepsy. The answer was there is no test to prove/disprove epilepsy, but it could be that.
Thankfully the fits stopped about 2 years ago before the cause was found.
jessica said:
This is for a friend. He had a brain aneurism 2 years ago. Is now fit and well and the DVLA have just written to him telling him they are removing his licence because he has epilespy.
Has he been driving for the last 2yrs?A colleague of mine had slightly disturbed vision in part of his eye but felt fine to drive. He'd driven to a hospital for tests and the consultant told him he couldn't drive himself home.
It's a bit dodgy the medical professionals telling the DVLA - they're only supposed to do it if the person is told not to drive but continues to do so. You are committing an offence though if a doctor tells you not to drive and you carry on.
He has got his licence back now but it took 2yrs and he had to move house in the meantime to be nearer work.
Hi,
An important piece of information is missing from the original post - that is what type of licence it is. The standards for PCV/LGV are much more strict & those conditions can easily result in the loss of the licence, sometimes for a long period of time. Car licencing is less strict but there are still a number of condtions listed in the post that will give concern.
The diabetes, the aneurysm, the loss of conciousness all potentially have a bearing - it's worth checking the DVLA website - they have an 'At a Glance Guide' to the conditions. Use the information in this to discuss the problem with the GP or consultant. Their doctor can call the DVLA to discuss the case if they want.
An important piece of information is missing from the original post - that is what type of licence it is. The standards for PCV/LGV are much more strict & those conditions can easily result in the loss of the licence, sometimes for a long period of time. Car licencing is less strict but there are still a number of condtions listed in the post that will give concern.
The diabetes, the aneurysm, the loss of conciousness all potentially have a bearing - it's worth checking the DVLA website - they have an 'At a Glance Guide' to the conditions. Use the information in this to discuss the problem with the GP or consultant. Their doctor can call the DVLA to discuss the case if they want.
setDVLA STATING THAT I did NOT/DO NOT have glaucoma but a non reportable condition occular hypertension. The consultant received an abusive phone call from a DVLA doctor questioning his qualifications and ability to diagnosis the conditions, incidentally the DVLA doctors own qualifications are such that he not allowed to work in any role in the NHS. The DVLA doctor then went on to 'diagnose' 4 other eye conditions that I don't have either, all refuted by letter from various eye consultants DVLA refuse to acknowledge their expert opinions. and insist that THEIR DIAGNOSIS arrived at without examination is correct They have insisted in letters to my local MP and MEP that they are correct, after over 2 years my fight goes on.
INCIDENTALLY YJEY LIKE TO QUOTE THE EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE INPLEMENTED ONJANUARY 9 2013 AS THE LEGISLATION FOR MANY MANY SRIVERS HAVING THEIR LICENCES REVOKED, IF YOU READ THE ACTUAL DIRRECTIVE, CLOSE TO THE BEGINNING AT CLAUSE 5 IT STATES THAT THE DIRECTIVE DOES NOT APPLY TO DRIVERS WHO HAD A LICENCE BEFORE JANUARY 9 2013 I.E GRANDFATHERS RIGHTS APPLY.
Incidentally 3 weeks or so AFTER MY TOO SLOW incident a police car overtaking a line of cars stopped because of a set of traffic light controlled crossing
INCIDENTALLY YJEY LIKE TO QUOTE THE EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE INPLEMENTED ONJANUARY 9 2013 AS THE LEGISLATION FOR MANY MANY SRIVERS HAVING THEIR LICENCES REVOKED, IF YOU READ THE ACTUAL DIRRECTIVE, CLOSE TO THE BEGINNING AT CLAUSE 5 IT STATES THAT THE DIRECTIVE DOES NOT APPLY TO DRIVERS WHO HAD A LICENCE BEFORE JANUARY 9 2013 I.E GRANDFATHERS RIGHTS APPLY.
Incidentally 3 weeks or so AFTER MY TOO SLOW incident a police car overtaking a line of cars stopped because of a set of traffic light controlled crossing
barncooseboy said:
setDVLA STATING THAT I did NOT/DO NOT have glaucoma but a non reportable condition occular hypertension. The consultant received an abusive phone call from a DVLA doctor questioning his qualifications and ability to diagnosis the conditions, incidentally the DVLA doctors own qualifications are such that he not allowed to work in any role in the NHS. The DVLA doctor then went on to 'diagnose' 4 other eye conditions that I don't have either, all refuted by letter from various eye consultants DVLA refuse to acknowledge their expert opinions. and insist that THEIR DIAGNOSIS arrived at without examination is correct They have insisted in letters to my local MP and MEP that they are correct, after over 2 years my fight goes on.
INCIDENTALLY YJEY LIKE TO QUOTE THE EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE INPLEMENTED ONJANUARY 9 2013 AS THE LEGISLATION FOR MANY MANY SRIVERS HAVING THEIR LICENCES REVOKED, IF YOU READ THE ACTUAL DIRRECTIVE, CLOSE TO THE BEGINNING AT CLAUSE 5 IT STATES THAT THE DIRECTIVE DOES NOT APPLY TO DRIVERS WHO HAD A LICENCE BEFORE JANUARY 9 2013 I.E GRANDFATHERS RIGHTS APPLY.
Incidentally 3 weeks or so AFTER MY TOO SLOW incident a police car overtaking a line of cars stopped because of a set of traffic light controlled crossing
Eh?INCIDENTALLY YJEY LIKE TO QUOTE THE EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE INPLEMENTED ONJANUARY 9 2013 AS THE LEGISLATION FOR MANY MANY SRIVERS HAVING THEIR LICENCES REVOKED, IF YOU READ THE ACTUAL DIRRECTIVE, CLOSE TO THE BEGINNING AT CLAUSE 5 IT STATES THAT THE DIRECTIVE DOES NOT APPLY TO DRIVERS WHO HAD A LICENCE BEFORE JANUARY 9 2013 I.E GRANDFATHERS RIGHTS APPLY.
Incidentally 3 weeks or so AFTER MY TOO SLOW incident a police car overtaking a line of cars stopped because of a set of traffic light controlled crossing
jessica said:
This is for a friend. He had a brain aneurism 2 years ago. Is now fit and well and the DVLA have just written to him telling him they are removing his licence because he has epilespy. There is no foundation for this. Said friend went to Doctors after brain surgery ( plat coil in head) after he had had a couple of light headed incidents. Turns out after tests he is diabetic. This is now under control and he is fit and healthy. GP wrote to DVLA to say fit to drive, Consultant head man wrote to DVLA to say man is fine and safe to drive. My friend wants to appeal against their decision and has been told he can do this by taking the DVLA to the magistrates court. He has started the proceedings. Even though he currently has just lost his job does not qualify for legal aid and so has to self respresent, has also been advised that DVLA wont change their mind. As you can imagine he is devostated as he knows he isnt epleptic and can prove it.
1. Does anyone know if he can get a sol to represent him
2. Any other advice
any advice gratefully accepted.
. 1. Does anyone know if he can get a sol to represent him
2. Any other advice
any advice gratefully accepted.
Is it mistaken identity?
Or did DVLA misread the doctors handwriting?
The beginning of the above post was chopped off
it states that originally accused of being drunk and then driving too slowly along a toad with 5 sets of lights in less than a mile and hundreds of student flats all by a policeman who sis not see the vehicle in motion
THE DVLA 'EXPERT' ISNT ALLOWED TO WOEK FOT THE NHS
it states that originally accused of being drunk and then driving too slowly along a toad with 5 sets of lights in less than a mile and hundreds of student flats all by a policeman who sis not see the vehicle in motion
THE DVLA 'EXPERT' ISNT ALLOWED TO WOEK FOT THE NHS
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff