Hi guys I will try to simply this

A letter was sent to DVLA to try get unclaimed tax fine squashed.

DVLA sent 3 letters to an address I've never been known at and my license was never registered at that address.

No response means my license was revoked.

After filling in a D1 and M1 forms and sending them off,

they wrote to my doctor

found out I had used diazepam illicitly for three weeks,

I've never had a drug or alcohol I didn't even realise the word illicit existed.

They are saying that I will not get my license back for a year,

not only did they mess the paper work at the beginning

their doctor is making false aligations about me

stating I undertook a supervised drug withdrawal

I was dependant on diazepam what is a lie,

the whole statement and the way DVLA handled it from the start shows they have not delt with my matter properly

My doctor wrote to them saying there's no concerns she's happy for me to drive my local mp agrees that I should have my license back

Any reviews on this matter?

Have you investigated or asked your doctor why he/she said that to the DVLA? AS the accusation you make, can have serious consequences for that doctor if hes guilty of it.

Diazapam is a UK POM so presumably you obtained some without a valid prescription, so could be considered an illegal drug user by many. What does your MP know about the Law? For him/her you are just potential support vote at the next Parliamentary election.

Local MPs can be useful.

Hi guys I will try to simply this

 

A letter was sent to DVLA to try get unclaimed tax fine squashed.

 

DVLA sent 3 letters to an address I've never been known at and my license was never registered at that address.

 

No response means my license was revoked.

 

After filling in a D1 and M1 forms and sending them off, they wrote to my doctor and found out I had used diazepam illicitly for three weeks, I've never had a drug or alcohol I didn't even realise the word illicit existed.

 

So now they are saying that I will not get my license back for a year, not only did they mess the paper work at the beginning

their doctor is making false aligations about me stating I undertook a supervised drug withdrawal and I was dependant on diazepam what is a lie, the whole statement and the way DVLA handled it from the start shows they have not delt with my matter properly

 

My doctor wrote to them saying there's no concerns she's happy for me to drive my local mp agrees that I should have my license back

 

Any reviews on this matter?

Did you take the drug illegally? Was it prescribed to you? How did your GP know?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/drug-or-alcohol-misuse-or-dependence-assessing-fitness-to-drive#drug-misuse-or-dependence

Unclaimed Tax fine?

What is this? Who imposed it?

Have you investigated or asked your doctor why he/she said that to the DVLA? AS the accusation you make, can have serious consequences for that doctor if hes guilty of it.

After the cab sent a ridiculoius letter to them they investigated my health and my doctor had told them I borrowed diazepam off a friend when I had ran out

and my doctor had told them I borrowed diazepam off a friend when I had ran out

Is that true or incorrect?

That's true

Your friend (unless a UK qualified pharmacist) was Guilty of providing a prescription-only medicine, without lawful authority under the Medicine Act, poss at your request.

You can appeal to a Magistrate’s Court.

If you were planning on doing so you’d be best advised to use a specialist motoring solicitor as I think you face a major challenge!

From a “worst case scenario” point of view:

The GP who told them you had “borrowed diazepam from a friend when you had run out” was telling the truth : so how is that a false allegation?

Diazepam is a medicine that people can become dependant on, and is prescription only.

When you “ran out”, why did you “borrow some from a friend” instead of going without? That would be a pretty good indicator that you needed more and couldn’t go without : dependence.

Of course, lots of people need more diazepam, go to their doctors and get a further prescription, and nobody bats an eye-lid.

Yet, the criminal act of you and your friend (them supplying you with a prescription only medicine, you being in possession of it without a prescription) mean that if you try and battle DVLA on this, they’ll quote the worst case scenario, as above.

Shown within the link in post #4, or at the foot of p.91 of the guidelines proper:

Note on benzodiazepines

The non-prescribed use of these agents and/or the use of a supratherapeutic dosage outside BNF guidelines constitutes persistent misuse or dependence for licensing purposes – whether in a programme of substance withdrawal or maintenance, or otherwise.

 

The prescribed use of these drugs at the therapeutic doses listed in the BNF, without evidence of impairment, does not amount to persistent misuse or dependence for licensing purposes (albeit, clinical dependence may exist).

So, the act of taking them when not prescribed (by “borrowing off a friend”, when you had “run out”) means DVLA can assess you as having “dependence, for licensing purposes”.

Regardless of if you agree with the outcome, (and/or their rationale), or not, DVLA are acting within their published guidelines.

Your GP and your MP aren’t the people who decide, and if DVLA are acting within their own guidelines you’ll struggle to get a Magistrate’s Court to force them to reconsider, as they’ll quote their guidelines and your use of diazepam (a benzodiazepine) that hadn’t been prescribed to you for that 3 week period.

That guideline is probably where the “programme of substance withdrawal or maintenance” bit comes from.

I don’t know if you’ve misread what they have stated or if they’ve included it by an admin error, but it won’t be enough to challenge their conclusion.

The orig dispensing Chemist shop (with permission of present disp Pharmacist) could have provided you with an Emergency supply for up to 7days.

Diazapam is a frequently traded street drug.

The orig dispensing Chemist shop (with permission of present disp Pharmacist) could have provided you with an Emergency supply for up to 7days.

Diazapam is a frequently traded street drug.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4499725/

Could they have LAWFULLY provided an emergency supply, though with the abuse / resale potential of diazepam, many pharmacists would be wary (and refer the patient to their original prescriber).

Walk in centres would be similarly wary: if the OP needed it and had had it prescribed, why did they not just get more from their GP?.

yet, that paper both notes : "Not for controlled drugs, except phenobarbital", and "medicinal products cannot be supplied if they consist of or contain any schedule 1, 2 or 3 controlled drugs", which makes the situation for daizepam ambiguous, as it is a controlled drug, but a Schedule 4 Controlled drug!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/controlled-drugs-list--2/list-of-most-commonly-encountered-drugs-currently-controlled-under-the-misuse-of-drugs-legislation

If the OP had asked their GP and been refused, and then gone to their friend instead: further evidence of dependence as far as DVLA are concerned!.

Hi Bazza,

So on the other story,

if diazepam was under Schedule 1,2,3 then it would be illicit to take from a friend but because it is "ambiguous" ie "not clear" or "decided" whilst in schedule 4, then the term illicit would be wrong for buying or selling else where untill 1,2,3 is decided?

No, the schedule 1,2,3 vs. 4 is where it becomes ambiguous about if a pharmacy can or can’t make an emergency supply.

It is illegal to (supply, or) posses a prescription only medicine that hadn’t been prescribed for you (or given under an emergency supply based on a previous prescription).

That applies for prescription only medicines. The offence becomes more severe based on the medicine being a controlled drug.

If you had gone back to a GP for a prescription (or, if they’d been able to, got an emergency supply legally from a pharmacy to give you time to get more prescribed st the GP’s) : thst’d be lawful and not illicit.

What you did was unlawful even for a prescription only medicine (though I doubt many people get prosecuted for it).

For a scheduled / controlled drug : you could have been prosecuted for possession (and your friend for supply, even though they possessed it legally).

Yet, that is ‘by the by’. Even though you got away with the unlawful possession, your driving licence issue is related to DVLA’s licensing decision that you are / were dependant, and they can withhold your licence for at least a year. You’ll find it hard (on the facts as stated) to appeal that.

ok thats brilliant information bazza you seem educated?

One last question,

on DVLA guideline to drug missuse it states:

The non-prescribed use of these agents and/or the use of a supratherapeutic dosage outside BNF guidelines constitutes persistent misuse or dependence for licensing purposes – whether in a programme of substance withdrawal or maintenance, or otherwise.

The prescribed use of these drugs at the therapeutic doses listed in the BNF, without evidence of impairment, does not amount to persistent misuse or dependence for licensing purposes (albeit, clinical dependence may exist).

"The non-prescribed use of these agents and/or the use of a supratherapeutic dosage outside BNF guidelines constitutes persistent misuse or dependence for licensing purposes"

based on the quoted referance, could it be argued that I did not go outside the BNF quidelines?

You could argue the dose wasn’t outside BNF guidelines.

They’ll likely argue both:

a) irrelevant, since that refers to a prescribed dose, and

b) the “and/or” means it doesn’t matter as “the non-prescribed use” is sufficient to constitute “persistent misuse or dependence for licensing purposes”.

You had a period / periods of prescribed use, but you had 3 weeks of non-prescribed use. That means DVLA can decide (for licensing purposes, and that is what we are talking about!) that you had “persustsnt misuse or dependence”, as defined in their guidelines for medical assessment of fitness to drive.

You can’t cherry-pick which bits of the guidelines you want to apply and which bits you want ignored.

You can’t cherry-pick that you want your GP or MP to decide.

Your appeal is initially to DVLA and subsequently to the Magistrates Court. You’ll need to make your case according to the whole of the guideline, you can’t ignore the bits that aren’t favourable to you.

For the reasons I’ve set out, I think you’ll struggle, as it seems DVLA are following their published guidelines.

"The non-prescribed use of these agents and/or the use of a supratherapeutic dosage outside BNF guidelines constitutes persistent misuse or dependence for licensing purposes – whether in a programme of substance withdrawal or maintenance, or otherwise."

I was quoting to this subject

"The non-prescribed use" meaning from a friend, brought online, or on the street, not prescribed by a doctor or pharmacy.

"the use of a supratherapeutic dosage outside BNF guidelines" meaning using an amount more then it states on the BNF guidelines, what I believe is upto 30mg for anxiety.

"constitutes persistent misuse or dependence"

is it just me misunderstanding or dose that state in basic text:

if you exceed the amount of dosage guided by BNF then it would mean presisten misuse or dependence?

Again, you're reading it wrong.

The non-prescribed use of these agents and/or the use of a supratherapeutic dosage outside BNF guidelines constitutes persistent misuse

When read correctly, becomes...

The non-prescribed use of these agents and the use of a supratherapeutic dosage outside BNF guidelines constitutes persistent misuse

The non-prescribed use of these agents constitutes persistent misuse

The use of a supratherapeutic dosage outside BNF guidelines constitutes persistent misuse

Clearer?

"The non-prescribed use of these agents and/or the use of a supratherapeutic dosage outside BNF guidelines constitutes persistent misuse or dependence for licensing purposes – whether in a programme of substance withdrawal or maintenance, or otherwise."

 

I was quoting to this subject

 

"The non-prescribed use" meaning from a friend, brought online, or on the street, not prescribed by a doctor or pharmacy.

 

"the use of a supratherapeutic dosage outside BNF guidelines" meaning using an amount more then it states on the BNF guidelines, what I believe is upto 30mg for anxiety.

 

"constitutes persistent misuse or dependence"

 

is it just me misunderstanding or dose that state in basic text:

 

if you exceed the amount of dosage guided by BNF then it would mean presisten misuse or dependence?

 

And/or is not exclusive. It’s a logic gate. It means exactly what it says. You are guilty of misuse if you do any of the three possible results of the logic gate, as follows:

1. Non-prescribed use

2. “Over” dosing

3. “Over”dosing non-prescribed use.

Simple.

How about using the “opposite polarity” to clarify.

Use, (even for long periods, even if there is clinical dependence) doesn’t count as “persistent misuse or dependence”, “for licensing purposes” as long as ALL of the following conditions are met;

a) prescribed use only (either as a dr’s Prescription or even through an emergency supply) but not if there is ANY period where the usage isn’t either (under a prescription or a pharmacy’s emergency supply)

b) at doses up to the BNF maximum, but no greater,

c) the doses used don’t impair your ability to drive.

I’m not sure how much clearer than conclusion can be : you breached DVLA’s guidelines by your use for 3 weeks of diazepam that had been prescribed to a friend of yours, and that for those 3 weeks hadn’t been prescribed to you.

You could have avoided breaching the guidelines if you had

a) not taken diazepam during those 3 weeks, OR

b) only taken diazepam made available to you by an emergency supply from a pharmacy giving you time to get a full prescription, OR

c) got a further supply by getting a prescription.

You should note that DVLA differentiate “clinical dependence” from “persistent misuse or dependence” “for licensing purposes”.

Firstly this means that DVLA don’t have to revoke the licenses of people who have clinical dependence on benzodiazepines, provided they always use benzo’s prescribed (or obtained under emergency supply) as long as they aren’t impaired and are using “BNF doses”. So, claiming “there are people more dependant than I am!” wont’t help you. That may be so, but they are covered as long as their use is prescribed for all the time they are using them.

Secondly, the discussion has to focus on the guidelines “for licensing purposes”. That is what DVLA have to use to reach their decision, and what a Magistrates Court will look at if an appeal reaches Court.

Your GP and MP may be sympathetic, but you still have to ask them : “applying the guidelines, can DVLA reach the conclusion that I had ‘persistent misuse or dependence, for licensing purposes’?”

Phrased like that, with the facts stated, DVLA, your GP, your MP +/- the courts have to reach the conclusion: DVLA’s decision isn’t wrong, according to the guidelines.

Hi guys I will try to simply this

 

A letter was sent to DVLA to try get unclaimed tax fine squashed.

 

DVLA sent 3 letters to an address I've never been known at and my license was never registered at that address.

 

No response means my license was revoked.

 

After filling in a D1 and M1 forms and sending them off,

they wrote to my doctor

found out I had used diazepam illicitly for three weeks,

I've never had a drug or alcohol I didn't even realise the word illicit existed.

 

They are saying that I will not get my license back for a year,

not only did they mess the paper work at the beginning

their doctor is making false aligations about me

stating I undertook a supervised drug withdrawal

I was dependant on diazepam what is a lie,

 

the whole statement and the way DVLA handled it from the start shows they have not delt with my matter properly

 

My doctor wrote to them saying there's no concerns she's happy for me to drive my local mp agrees that I should have my license back

 

Any reviews on this matter?

Depending what was in the letters the DVLA sent to someone else’s address you may have a claim under the Data Protection Act for misuse of your personal data. Especially if they made any remarks regarding your medical condition.

True, but the OP would get (at best) minimal compensation as damages.

It won’t help the OP with his licence issue.

Yep It won’t help him with his license issue.

But IF confidential medical info was in those letters the few grand should help for a chauffeur or taxis for the next year.

They have made a offer of £200 that I rejected and ask it to be referred to ICA,

On the second part I canceld my appeal