Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Help - driving licence revoked with immediate effect

451 replies

LadyRussell · 24/08/2018 11:36

Posting for traffic - help!

DH was diagnosed with sleep apnea a few months ago and informed the DVLA as instructed.

He now has an oxygen mask he wears at night which has improved his sleep dramatically.

He is currently driving his kids home from a trip to the other side of the country and I have received a letter from the DVLA saying his licence has been revoked as of immidiate effect from yesterday - WTAF?

He has NEVER fallen asleep while driving and he lives 150 miles away from us in the week so driving is essential.

He has to prove certain things to get his licence back but this is going to take time.

How the hell can they do this - no warning nothing.

Does anyone know if we can appeal?

OP posts:
Iwantyourmumtoo · 24/08/2018 14:12

I haven't read the full thread but this information
should help.

If he takes his letter to the council he will get a bus pass for free bus usage.

He cannot use the "I didn't see the letter" excuse because he has already been instructed.

When you are told by a medical professional to inform DVLA they will also have told him to stop driving straight away (and even as far as do not drive home, get someone else to collect your car. He can't deny this as they have a strict protocol to abide to.

He cannot use the "I didn't see the letter" excuse because he has already been instructed.

He must also have told his consultant/doctor he was suffering with excessive sleepyness or excessive drowyness to have triggered the inform the DVLA advice he will have been given. You don't have to have fallen asleep. Driving when sleepy or drowsy is dangerous.

He will, not have been insured since the time he was told to stop driving.

My career was accident and fraud investigation and if you had been to some of the coroners court cases I have been to you wouldn't be getting snippy with other posters.

I don't understand how people can knowingly put others at risk. It's selfish beyond belief.

When I was told not to drive (vision issues) I had to leave my car in the hospital car park a s use public transport home and get someone to collect my car.

DollyTots · 24/08/2018 14:17

This happened to my mum earlier this year. She was happy to stop driving because she knew the dangers, even though it was a massive inconvenience. I get your frustration.

My mum had to take a couple of weeks results from the CPAP machine to the consultant to prove it was working and improving her breathing/quality of sleep, which it was. Then they wrote to the DVLA and was swiftly allowed to drive again.

Witchofwisteria · 24/08/2018 14:18

How would you feel if you didn't tell him and he crashed and killed himself, your 2 children and someone else on the way. Unfortunately you need to call him, he needs to pull over and you need to arrange to meet him where ever he is and drive you all back. Sadly you just have to figure out your next steps in regards to life after that. Wish you all the best.

Helenluvsrob · 24/08/2018 14:18

Just remember the Glasgow bin lorry tradgedy when you consider medical issues and driving. He was driving with medical issues that were undeclared.
A car is a weapon , it's all very well saying " I have to drive I accept the risk" but you aren't allowed to put what could be a large number of others at risk too.

Original poster
LadyRussell · 24/08/2018 14:20

I told him to go to the Drs as he was stopping breathing when he was asleep. He also was snoring terribly, all of which has ceased since he purchased the CPAP - he didn’t want to wait for the NHS to sort one, it takes forever.

Bus pass is no good. He works away and cannot work fro home.

OP posts:
Oblomov18 · 24/08/2018 14:22

Hang on a sec, I'm confused.
I keep reading thread but I'm struggling to keep
Track of op's posts.

Who notified the DVLA of his sleep apnea? Him or his consultant?
When diagnosed?
Did consultant not talk to Dh re driving, re DVLA. He must have!

I have loads of other questions.

I have EXTENSIVE experience of dealing with DVLA. The medical section are completely separate unit and it's to them you need to speak.

NOT the complaints dept.

I've had fights with them. Many times. And twice used one of the top UK driving lawyers, who managed to get results I simply couldn't get, despite my daily phone calls.

aaarrrggghhhh · 24/08/2018 14:23

Just remember the Glasgow bin lorry tradgedy when you consider medical issues and driving. He was driving with medical issues that were undeclared.

This

DolorestheNewt · 24/08/2018 14:23

He was driving with medical issues that were undeclared.
His medical issues aren't undeclared. They are declared, and being treated.

DerekTheBrave · 24/08/2018 14:23

He should pull into the nearest services and arrange for someone to collect him and the kids

I don’t for one second believe that anyone in this situation would actually do this in real life. Not anyone.

CocoCharlie83 · 24/08/2018 14:26

“CocoCharlie83

The legal position only matters if you are pulled over or in an accident. Chances of these happening on his way home extremely low.

I have never had an accident or been pulled over in 15 years of driving does that mean I don't need a license or insurance since my chances of it happening will be even better than extremely low given I am in great health?”

"glintandglide

It’s really odd that you don’t understand my simple post. I don’t really know what else to say."

I do understand your post you are saying it is ok to drive without insurance or a license because it is low risk that something will happen. But how long is it ok to do it a few hours, a couple of days, a few months until he receives his license back?

Low risk isn't no risk so if he is involved in an accident it could have huge consequences.

OP should try to inform their partner so he can make an informed decision on what he wants to do, be it stop driving or risk driving home and being able to alter his driving to be safer if required.

maddening · 24/08/2018 14:26

The letter process used here is ridiculous - assuming someone has received a letter - dvla should def review this process as it is so totally flawed! Eg lost or missing post etc for something that creates legal obligations

Iwantyourmumtoo · 24/08/2018 14:27

@LadyRussell I also lost my career as I couldn't drive. One day I was interviewing people 120 miles away and the next I lost my licence, my career and much more.

I know how shit it is, but I also know the legalities surrounding revoking driving licenses.and he will have known to stop driving.

Its shit, totally and utterly crap. He may be able to get help to/from work via access to work if it looks as though it will be long term.

aaarrrggghhhh · 24/08/2018 14:28

@DolorestheNewt - yes and the response to it being declared was that he shouldn't be driving!

@DerekTheBrave I definitely would. No question. I've worked on disputed motor insurance claims, often for serious accidents. I have seen many many of the "never gonna happen" happen and the results can be catastrophic for peoples lives. I find it difficult to understand tbh would anyone take that risk because its a pain in the next to have to rearrange transport.

fontofnoknowledge · 24/08/2018 14:30

If he was stopped by the police for any reason I doubt the "hasn't opened the letter yet" defence would work.

I am currently sat in an office of 4 traffic police (and 6 response officers). I have put this situation to them. The overwhelming 6-0 verdict is this.
If the date of the letter is 3 days or more from current date (to give time for slow post) AND/OR he can show that he was not at home when the post arrived. (He could be on two weeks holiday with no one to open the post and driving back from the airport) Then they he would not charge with any offence.

As already mentioned it is not ignorance of the law that matters . He currently is in ignorance of the decision. He cannot know a decision until told it.
His licence is revoked when he is told it is revoked.
This is in two ways. By reading the letter or being informed by a police officer or phone call by DVLA. Without a revoked license his insurance is valid.

the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

Proof that he wasn't in the house - by the fact that he is over 150 miles away.. would just about seem to fit the picture for 'unless the contrary is proved' !!!

HeckyPeck · 24/08/2018 14:31

When you are told by a medical professional to inform DVLA they will also have told him to stop driving straight away (and even as far as do not drive home, get someone else to collect your car. He can't deny this as they have a strict protocol to abide to.

This isn’t always the case. Often ththe consultants say their patient is fit to drive then the DVLA ban them and the person has to jump through hoops to get their licence back.

incywincybitofa · 24/08/2018 14:31

Iwantyourmumtoo Raises the point, there is a strict protocol to a patient being involved in informing the DVLA and they are not supposed to even drive home from the appointment were they are told to inform the DVLA. It isn't clear if you were with your DH when he was told to inform the DVLA, but let's be honest from that moment he knew he wasn't to drive, and whether he told you that or not is irrelevant.
He is a 150 mile drive away from you every week-end, that isn't a reason not to take his licence away it is almost the opposite.
Someone makes the point he is safer to drive now, than he has been whilst he wasn't being treated for apnea, however no one but a qualified Dr with all of your DH's information is able to say that, not him, not us, but a Dr and a Dr hasn't yet said that.
The DVLA is well aware of the impact of revoking a license, it is not done lightly. There are good reasons for why it happens based on facts and information, and it isn't up to an armchair arbitrator to decide they are wrong.

placemats · 24/08/2018 14:33

Why is he driving when he knew that the DVLA were contacted?

I had gall stone attacks that came on quite suddenly. Until the gall stones were removed, I did not drive, even though the DVLA were not contacted. No way would I risk being at the wheel and having an attack. The fact the attacks took place whilst not driving was neither here nor there. A pain I know.

BrokenWing · 24/08/2018 14:33

How the hell can they do this - no warning nothing.

There is too much information missing to comment fully, but generally because you and your dh are not qualified to make the decision yourselves. They cannot give you warning as he has not been proven safe to drive since his diagnosis.

when you dh was first diagnosed a few months ago did he voluntarily give up his license to the DVLA and stop driving until his condition was treated and proven to be under control? Not many would and this is why they have to revoke licenses until it is proven a driver is fit to return to driving before they kill themselves or someone else.

It is absolutely the correct process and I am just surprised it took them a few months to do this assuming your dh reported immediately..

I drove a colleague who lived nearby to work for around 4 months last year when he has a bad period with his CFS and the DVLA revoked his license until his meds were back under control. He takes full responsibility for his condition by not driving and informing his insurance as soon as he is aware he is having an issue again. Not many would and it is scary to think there are drivers out there with medical conditions meaning they are a risk to everyone on the road.

aaarrrggghhhh · 24/08/2018 14:36

Without a revoked license his insurance is valid.

Not necessarily. The relevant test is whether he was aware of a material change in his circumstances which could change the insurer's attitude to covering him. Almost all insurance policies impose an ongoing duty to notify the insurer of a material change.

A DVLA notifiable health condition is highly likely to be considered to be such a material change. So - unless he has notified the insurer and they've said its okay - there is a very significant likelihood that his insurer would not pay out.

Iwantyourmumtoo · 24/08/2018 14:38

@aaarrrggghhhh good to see someone else here who understands the process and implications of driving whilst medically unfit.

diddl · 24/08/2018 14:38

"from that moment he knew he wasn't to drive, "

Yes, that's what I put earlier-otherwise, why are you informing the DVLA?

Iwantyourmumtoo · 24/08/2018 14:40

@fontofnoknowledge as traffic officers they should also know that prior to this.letter the driver has already been instructed to stop.driving.

mydogisthebest · 24/08/2018 14:41

Iwantyourmummytoo, unless you were at the appointment you do not know that he was told to stop driving.

The OP says he informed the DVLA as he was instructed to. No mention that he had been told not to drive.

Also she says he was diagnosed with apnea a few months ago. Presuming he notified the DVLA straight away why has it taken them so long to contact him to tell him not to drive? It doesn't seem as though they think it is urgent does it?

OrcinusOrca · 24/08/2018 14:42

This exact thing happened to my friend's sister. A junior technician filled in paperwork and did it wrong, because the consultant was happy with the results downloaded from the machine. In the end they paid £250 to see the consultant privately to get it rectified because otherwise she was at risk of losing her job.

OrcinusOrca · 24/08/2018 14:44

For the record the consultant never asked this patient to stop driving. They were diagnosed, got given the machine, started using the machine, and the consultant was happy with their usage of the machine and that it didn't inhibit driving at any point. They've been using it in excess of one year when the technician did some paperwork wrong.