Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good Law Project are trying to force HMG to release details of how Sunak's hedge fund made large profits from Moderna. Government ordered to disclose Sunak’s hedge fund emails - Good Law Project GOODLAWPROJECT.ORG Good Law Project has won a battle with the Treasury after it tried to suppress emails between Rishi Sunak and the hedge fund he founded.  
    • Nick Wallis has written up the first day of Angela van den Bogerd's evidence to the inquiry. I thought she was awful. She's decided to go with being not bright enough to spot what was happening over Fujitsu altering entries on the Horizon system, rather than covering up important facts. She's there today as well. The First Lady of Flat Earth – Post Office Scandal WWW.POSTOFFICESCANDAL.UK Angela van den Bogerd, on oath once more It is possible that Angela van den Bogerd and her senior colleagues (Rodric Williams, Mark Davies, Susan...  
    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Driving after a seizure and DVLA still assessing fitness to drive


Jmac-25
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2348 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I had a seizure a couple of weeks ago, first one ever, and the hospital told me to speak to the DVLA, who told me I had to complete a declaration (FEP1 form) so they could assess my fitness to drive. According to the guidelines it could be a 6 month ban.

 

However the form says "you must not drive if your doctor says you cannot drive". Neither my doctor or the consultant at the hospital will give me a decision - they say that's for the DVLA to decide.

 

So, while the form is being processed etc - am I OK to drive, since no one has said I can't?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a seizure a couple of weeks ago, first one ever, and the hospital told me to speak to the DVLA, who told me I had to complete a declaration (FEP1 form) so they could assess my fitness to drive. According to the guidelines it could be a 6 month ban.

 

However the form says "you must not drive if your doctor says you cannot drive". Neither my doctor or the consultant at the hospital will give me a decision - they say that's for the DVLA to decide.

 

So, while the form is being processed etc - am I OK to drive, since no one has said I can't?

 

p.18 of DVLA's guidance, for

First unprovoked epileptic seizure / isolated seizure : Group 1 (car) "Must not drive and must notify DVLA. Driving will be prohibited for 6 months from date of the seizure".

 

If you think your doctors aren't giving you a decision, you need to ask them why they feel that guideline doesn't apply - do they think there is a different cause?.

 

Unless there is some complicating factor in play here (where they should be explaining it to you), you and they know the answer; which is you shouldn't be driving.

If you cause an accident by driving and having a further seizure:

a) you won't be insured,

b) you'll be liable to prosecution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you have a choice to make.

Show your doctor the leaflet issued by the government and tell them they are wrong.

Or

Stop driving until the DVLA make a decision.

 

Do you want to take the chance of having another seizure and possibly mow-ing someone down and kill them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not be that the doctors are 'wrong',

they may have reason to be applying a different guideline than "First unprovoked epileptic seizure / isolated seizure"

OP's best bet is to not drive for now, and seek an urgent explanation from their doctor(s)!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I would go with section 88 of the road traffic act rather tan DVLA guidance.

If the doctors are not willing to Say your fit to drive, I would take it as they don't think your fit to drive.

 

The consequences of driving and having another seizure far outweigh the slight inconvenience of not driving until a firm medical decision is made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

p.18 of DVLA's guidance, for

First unprovoked epileptic seizure / isolated seizure : Group 1 (car) "Must not drive and must notify DVLA. Driving will be prohibited for 6 months from date of the seizure".

 

If you think your doctors aren't giving you a decision, you need to ask them why they feel that guideline doesn't apply - do they think there is a different cause?.

 

Unless there is some complicating factor in play here (where they should be explaining it to you), you and they know the answer; which is you shouldn't be driving.

If you cause an accident by driving and having a further seizure:

a) you won't be insured,

b) you'll be liable to prosecution.

 

Yes, that seems fair enough. Its just I've gone round in circles - the DVLA have said I need to ask my doctor if I can drive, and they say they can't decide that and its up to the DVLA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I would go with section 88 of the road traffic act rather tan DVLA guidance.

If the doctors are not willing to Say your fit to drive, I would take it as they don't think your fit to drive.

 

The consequences of driving and having another seizure far outweigh the slight inconvenience of not driving until a firm medical decision is made.

 

Section 88 seems to refer to people who don't currently have a licence. I do - I just need a decision made as to whether I can drive while my circumstances are investigated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not be that the doctors are 'wrong', they may have reason to be applying a different guideline than "First unprovoked epileptic seizure / isolated seizure"

OP's best bet is to not drive for now, and seek an urgent explanation from their doctor(s)!.

 

The consultant at the hospital said that although I'd had a seizure, in his opinion I did not have epilepsy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 88 seems to refer to people who don't currently have a licence. I do - I just need a decision made as to whether I can drive while my circumstances are investigated.

 

Have you clicked the link and downloaded the leaflet??????

 

You need to find out if the dvla have suspended your licence whilst they look at you application. They sometimes do this carte blanche.

Your doctor can overturn this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I may not have been far off with

It may not be that the doctors are 'wrong', they may have reason to be applying a different guideline than "First unprovoked epileptic seizure / isolated seizure"

OP's best bet is to not drive for now, and seek an urgent explanation from their doctor(s)!.

 

Since,

 

The consultant at the hospital said that although I'd had a seizure, in his opinion I did not have epilepsy.

 

which begs the follow-up question:

"OK, what do you think caused the seizure, and what is its impact on my fitness to drive....."

 

Section 88 seems to refer to people who don't currently have a licence. I do - I just need a decision made as to whether I can drive while my circumstances are investigated.

 

Precisely (regarding S.88)

 

Well I would go with section 88 of the road traffic act rather tan DVLA guidance.

If the doctors are not willing to Say your fit to drive, I would take it as they don't think your fit to drive.

 

The consequences of driving and having another seizure far outweigh the slight inconvenience of not driving until a firm medical decision is made.

 

S. 88 isn't applicable here.

 

S.88 applies either:

a) when someone has previously voluntarily surrendered their licence because they think they don't meet the guidelines, and then re-applies once they believe they meet them again. They can then drive pending their application being reviewed. This encourages voluntary surrender (it doesn't apply if DVLA revoke / rescind the licence rather than it being voluntarily surrendered), or

b) A licence expires, and an application for a new licence has been made prior to the expiry (and the applicant believes they meet the standards). The applicant can then drive (but only in the UK, the situation regarding S.88 permission is unclear for other jurisdictions) while their application is being processed.

 

If DVLA are 'making medical enquiries' and a licence expires while they are still assessing the application they send the applicant a (not terribly helpful!) S.88 letter!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the dvla suspend the licence whilst investigating.

 

This happens to my father.

He had a blackout, not driving.

He informed dvla

They suspendedlicence while investigated, but failed to notify my dad, letter missing in post.

Its only when he checked online on my advice he found out.

 

Doctor then said its a one off and ok to drive.

Dad informed dvla

Suspension lifted while they continued to investigate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the dvla suspend the licence whilst investigating.

.......

 

Doctor then said its a one off and ok to drive.

Dad informed dvla

Suspension lifted while they continued to investigate.

 

This isn't the OP's situation though. Op has specifically noted that they haven't been told they are OK to drive ......

 

Not being told "you mustn't drive" isn't the same as being told "you can drive" !.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you clicked the link and downloaded the leaflet??????

 

You need to find out if the dvla have suspended your licence whilst they look at you application. They sometimes do this carte blanche.

Your doctor can overturn this.

 

They've sent me a letter saying "thanks for informing us of your change in health, you can either surrender your licence or if you don't wish to, fill in this medical form and we will make an assessment". And then "if you don't do this within 14 days we may revoke your licence". So I don't think they'll have suspended it yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My father wasn't told either.

 

He also wasn't told his licence was revolked whilst under investigation.

 

It was only after finding out he went to doctor.

Hence my first couple of replies.

But we are rather splitting hairs here.

 

If it was me....

I wouldn't drive until dvla Said I'm good to drive

Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't the OP's situation though. Op has specifically noted that they haven't been told they are OK to drive ......

 

Not being told "you mustn't drive" isn't the same as being told "you can drive" !.

 

Kind of is, I think. I think the neurologist would have said that if it was so important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of is, I think. I think the neurologist would have said that if it was so important.

 

You can bet that if you drive, get caught (or have an accident as a result of a seizure), you can bet that their approach will be "no, I definitely didn't tell them they could drive"!

 

They've sent me a letter saying "thanks for informing us of your change in health, you can either surrender your licence or if you don't wish to, fill in this medical form and we will make an assessment". And then "if you don't do this within 14 days we may revoke your licence". So I don't think they'll have suspended it yet.

 

And theirin lies the rub.

If you don;t surrender your licence, and have another fit, causing an accident, you'll likely get prosecuted and will almost certainly find yourself uninsured (have you spoken with your insurers? if they won;t cover you, that might influence your drcision!).

If you don't surrender your licence and DVLA revoke it, you won;t later get the benefit of S.88

 

If you decide to surrender your licence (which you may decide to do, especially if your insurers won't cover you!), you then get the benefit of S.88 (although you may find you still can't get insurance until DVLA re-issue your licence!).

 

Either way, take a copy of your licence (and any counterpart!), as entitlements have been known to 'go missing'.

If you surrender your licence or DVLA revoke it, when you get a new licence you may find that you no longer have C1/D1 entitlement that used to be issued automatically if the first 'B' test was passed before January 1997

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the benefit of S.88?

 

I've found the below here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/general-information-assessing-fitness-to-drive:

 

"Driving during medical enquiries

The time taken to obtain all necessary reports can be lengthy but a licence holder normally retains entitlement to drive under Section 88 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. However, a driver whose last licence was revoked or refused because of a medical condition or is a High Risk Offender re-applying after a drink/drive disqualification from 1 June 2013 would not, however, be eligible to drive until they are issued with a new licence.

 

The driver may be covered to drive but this carries implications for road safety in that the licence holder may continue to drive with a medical condition that, on completion of the DVLA’s enquiries, may ultimately result in licence withdrawal.

 

It is for the patient to assure themself that they are fit to drive. Medical professionals asked for an opinion about a patient’s fitness to drive in these circumstances should explain the likely outcome by reference to this guide. The final decision in relation to driver licensing will, however, rest with the DVLA.

 

By reference to the DVLA’s guidance, the doctor in charge of an individual’s care should be able to advise the driver whether or not it is safe for them to continue to drive during this period.

 

Patients must be reminded that if they choose to ignore medical advice to stop driving this may affect their insurance cover. Doctors are advised to formally and clearly document the advice given."

 

 

Interesting that my consultant has refused to provide guidance on this, other than to tell me to speak to DVLA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...