Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, Hotpoint UK has been a subsidiary of Whirlpool for over 20 years. And unlike some domestic goods manufacturers you can buy from them direct and I believe they employ their own service engineers, Is that your situation? You bought direct from Hotpoint and Hotpoint sent out their own engineer?
    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
  • 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
      • 160 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 2320 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...