Skip to main content

Claw Hammers Akimbo

Nails out. Nasty wounds - BUT A LOT OF SATISFACTION.        

Driving licence restored last Thursday morning by surprise post with letter dated 02.09.08. - telling me I had successfully reapplied on the basis I had been free of dependency on alcohol for six months. This licence to run from this month. Letter also said: “Please let us know urgently what you intend to do about your appeal (set for 9th September).

My concerns: a) my appeal is against the original decision - that it was wrong and based on flimsy, flimsy evidence. b) that I didn’t know if I withdrew the appeal, if that would prejudice a referral to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Friday morning, rang the Parliamentary Ombudsmans Office: Clear advice that they would expect me to go through any means of appeal first and then, although they couldn’t effect any result of that appeal, I could then pursue a complaint about maladministration.

Rang DVLA and told them appeal would go ahead.

Saturday morning, got a letter from Dr Sheppard, Medical Adviser, DVLA, also dated 02.09.08. virtually admitting her original decision was wrong and I could retain my licence as if nothing happened. Took a copy of this to the Court Monday lunchtime.

Monday late afternoon - urgent phone call from the Court telling me a DVLA doctor and a Barrister were on their way here to defend my appeal. The phone call was urgent because THE MEDICAL APPEALS SECTION WHO HAD ORGANISED THE DOCTOR AND BARRISTER HADN’T KNOWN ANYTHING ABOUT DR SHEPPARD’S LETTER!!!

This morning: coincidentally, phone call from BBC Watchdog (I had e mailed them at the beginning of all this and had forgotten it). Filled them in with everything. Any programme will depend on enough people with like complaints.

This afternoon: appeal upheld in Court (their barrister actually quite a nice guy). Next step formal complaint with a view to a referral to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Now if I had been a 70 year old who wasn’t impervious to corporate bullying and who hadn’t a little knowledge of how, why and when in social justice, I’d have been left a shattered wreck and a prisoner in my own home.

WHEN YOU THINK, AND WE NEVER DO ABOUT THESE SORT OF ESOTERIC EVENTS, TO PERSECUTE A 70 YEAR OLD AND DEPRIVE HER/HIM OF LIBERTY BASED ON A TICK BOX ON A FORM IN THIS WAY IS GROSSLY KAFKAESQUE. THE MESSAGE IS:

If your GP asks you about drink - at a diabetic clinic, for example, the dialogue would go something like:

”Do you smoke?“

”Not since 1985.“

”Do you drink?“

”Yes - and as I’m now diabetic I need to cut down - it’s over the recommended healthy limit of 28 units a week.“

BE VERY CAREFUL!!! DVLA will send you a medical questionnaire with a section where you give permission for an examination of your medical records. Should you refuse this what would they do????

Give your permission and they will send your GP a two page form with yes and no boxes to tick. and GPs not being specialists, it is the easiest thing in the world for them to tick the wrong box.

This is DVLA’s version of ”Medical Inquiries.“


Comments

PatientGuard said…
Well there you go and now you fight because hell if you didn't ........

God knows ...
Made by Mandy said…
What a trial eh?

But glad, finally, that not only have you got you license back but that those who made the mistakes are acknowledging the mistakes they made.

Hope the BBC picks up on it. Sure you aren't the only one who has been done down by the system.

Happy motoring x

Popular posts from this blog

SURVIVOR HISTORY NEWSLETTER

>From Andrew Roberts Secretary Survivors History Group http://studymore.org.uk/ studymore@studymore.org.uk telephone: 020 8 986 5251 home address: 177 Glenarm Road, London, E5 ONB Survivor History Group Summer 2012 Newsletter The July London meeting of the Survivors History Group will be held on Wednesday 25.7.2012 from 1pm to 5pm at Together, 12 Old Street, London. Everybody is welcome and refreshments will be provided. The September meeting has had to be moved from a Wednesday to Thursday 27.9.2012 (subject to approval by this Wednesday's meeting) because of the availability of a room at Together.   -------------------------------------------------------------------- The agenda for the July meeting will be drawn up at the beginning of the meeting, but it will include Peter Campbell's regular report back on the research he is leading on the history of Survivors Speak Out and discussion of material received from other people about Survivors Speak Out.  Rick Hennelly has se...

The DLA and Workfare Scandals.

This ConDem Coalition is exploiting the apparent helplessness of disabled people by taking essential money away from them and forcing vulnerable people, for example, people with mental health difficulties. I remember, when I was a practising social worker, the horror experienced by service users when they received a letter summoning them to undergo a medical examination (25 miles away in Norwich). Some became absolutely terrified at the prospect and the stress of having to get to and face the appointment led to one or two relapses and hospital admissions. Against local authority policy, I always took them to the appointment, went in with them and supported them through the interview acting as advocate. The doctors at these reviews were employed by the Benefits Agency and usually retired from practice. They were also usually empathic with the service user and mostly helped to reduce the terror of the interview. The new 'Workfare' reviews which every DLA claimant will have to und...

inappropriate!!!

I tried to respond to a Patient Citizen Exchange blog by Laura Greene today. I said: Hello Laura. Welcome - and my admiration? for you "single-handedly representing the entire health voluntary sector and 1000+ PCX membership..." My first question has to be: what is the composition of the Strategic Advisory Board? And my second question: what proportion of service users to professionals is there on that Board? There are indeed millions of impatient citizens out there. They are called Service Users (primarily because 'Patient" carries the labels 'One that has things done to her/him'; 'One that is subservient to the "We know what is best for you" approach'; 'One that is at the wrong end of an imbalance of power.' etc). The Americans prefer the term 'consumers', but whatever, we should avoid the term with the negative connotations. I was listening to the 5 Live debate this morning on the Strictly Come Dancing row about whether...