Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Any suggestions on this case with dvla?


Gi-
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2265 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

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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
or

The non-prescribed use of these agents constitutes persistent misuse
or

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

 

Clearer?

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...