Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Care to briefly tell someone who isn't tech savvy - i.e. me! - how you did this? Every day is a school day.
    • Hi Guys, well a year on and my friend has just received this in the post today, obviously a little scared so looking for more of your advice.  Letter from the NCC dated 1-May-2024 is as follows.......   Before deputy district judge Haythorne sitting at the national business centre, 4th floor st Kathrine's house Northampton Upon reading an application from the claimant  it is ordered that  1. The claim be sent to the county court at #### (Friends local Court) Because this order has been made without a hearing, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed.  A party making such an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service of this order.  If the application is one which requires a hearing, and a) the party making the application is the defendant: and b) the defendant is an individual, then upon filing of the application the claim will be transferred to the defendants home court.  In all other cases requiring a hearing the claim will be transferred to the preferred court.    As a result of an order made on the 1 May 2024, this claim has been transferred to the county court at ##### (friends local court) 
    • I am heading over to hers tomorrow so I will find out.  Will there be something written in the agreement or does it depend on the agreement its self ? Just so I know what to look for, so I can provide as much information as possible on here. 
    • The answer to this is going to depend on what the agreement your friend signed says. Or contact the housing provider and ask them.  
  • 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

Specsavers Suspension of Driving Licence


eyeball12
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3373 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

A relative of mine has recently had an eyesight test at the request of the DVLA.

 

 

On going to Specsavers (the DVLA's designated optician) they failed the test but

they were offered an immediate re-test albeit with a fee payable.

 

 

They refused their kind offer and subsequently they lost their licence.

 

 

If a person fails a test is there any point in re-testing, especially immediately?

Surely Specsavers aren't going to take someone's money just to fail them again.

If the re-test passes them, the result of the first test must be questionable.

 

Thinking about it maybe they just thought this was a sales opportunity.

 

A month previously my relative had their eyes tested at another well known High Street opticians

and was specifically told their eyes were fine to continue driving.

 

 

My relative went back there after learning their licence had been revoked.

 

 

The optician there and then did a retest and said again their eyes were more than adequate to continue driving.

 

Needless to say both myself and my relative are pretty unhappy with Specsavers.

 

 

Has anyone else had a similar experience?

 

Why did DVLA want them to have an eyesight test? Do they have an underlying medical condition?

 

Related to "do they have an ophthalmic condition", what did they "fail" on?

Insufficient (corrected) VA?

Visual field deficit?

Some other factor?

 

Visual acuity & fields shouldn't change that quickly between tests such a short time apart if there is no underlying medical problem, but if there is no problem, why are DVLA asking for a test .....

 

If there is an underlying medical problem then it is possible to see such change (eg with glaucoma, what if the pressures were particularly raised the day of the "bad" test).

 

As for "we'll retest you straight away & charge you for it" ; I can see how this looks "dodgy" without explanation.

However, it is possible to construct a "non-dodgy" scenario

e.g. Fail on Visual Field, one "spot" only, but in a key area.

Optometrist / Optician has to issue a "fail".

Their "gut feeling" is that it was due to the patient not being comfortable with the test, but "DVLA rules" don't allow for such. Hence they think "they'll probably pass on a retest"

 

Even so, with the scenario I've constructed, it is open to misinterpretation as "commercial scalping" unless it is explained, and (so far) we don't know enough about the actual scenario to reach a reliable conclusion.

 

I'm not sure one can say the Specsavers test was "wrong" without the extra info to justify the criticism : the detail is important to make a reliable assesment.

 

 

What Group (1 or 2) licence is it? There are different standards.

 

 

DVLA publish the medical standards they use, including the eyesight requirements. The Group 1 requirements are pretty clear.

 

Group 2 requirements are more complex, depending on if it is "just" a C1 license, and also the date of test pass (as there are "grandfather" provisions), but a "fail" on the Group 1 standards is an automatic "fail" for Group 2, too.

 

There may be "foul play" here, but I can't see how those who are claiming it can be sure, without the details to back up those claims.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, thanks for your replies. I guess that just because something smells at Specsavers it doesn't mean there a pile of you know what. This relation is elderly but I know that if they thought that they weren't up to driving they would give up. The test came about when someone anonymously contacted the DVLA and said who knows what? We dont know. As I typed this I thought "surely this isn't right, an anonymous accusation?". They have had no accident. They have no eye problem accept something called dry eyes which they sometime use drops for. Exactly what was tested we are unsure of accept that it didnt last as long as a normal test. They have a straightforward licence just for cars, group 2. Its the fact that twice, another Optician did specific tests for driving and found no grounds for a suspension. Something still smells.... Thanks

 

A) Group 2 isn't standard cars, that is Group 1.

B) how can your relative not know what was tested - they will know what they were asked to do, be that "read the eye chart" or "pressing the button when you see a light flash".

 

Dry eyes alone aren't a cause of restriction : blepharospasm with / from dry eyes could be.

Otherwise, is this all related to visual acuity? Cataract?

 

There are processes to either:

A) appeal the revocation, or

B) re-apply for a licence.

 

Either way you need to know

i) why it was revoked (ask the Specsavers optician, SAR'ing them if a simple request fails), and

ii) what the standards are / what the Specsavers and other optician found

 

to boost your relatives chances of success.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...