DVLA withholding personal medical information.

Wee_Willy_Harris

pubjoe wrote: »

Is there any need for that?

Well, you want the info, you've been told how to get it, but you don't want to do that. Seems a reasonable assesment to me.

A focal siezure (or partial seizure) IS an epileptic episode. Epilepsy covers all types of siezure and all count as far as the DVLA are concerned. A partial (or focal) seizure is often the precurser to a larger seizure. Either way, the standard licence suspension after ANY seizure is 12 months.

It could be that the info on the desk at the DVLA was the recommendation from their medical team based on the initial siezure and nothing to do with the medical staff your gf has contacted since. But there's only one way to find out .... and the longer you wait while arguing the toss, the longer it will take.

pubjoe

I came here for advice and commented on the dvla's snail exchange.

I did appreciate the advice. Obviously I was hoping to hear something else but unfortunately it seems that one reply has exhausted all possible options.

The DVLA have already messed her around, given inaccurate information and inconsistent judgements in the past, so I'm hesitant to advise Lu to go through more stress by jumping through their hoops (plus paying them for the privilege).

Is sharing my thoughts, or even maybe hoping for alternative advice, an insult?

I don't think jumping in so humorously with your comment about my concern (for my partner) as having a strop is reasonable, no. But I notice you share the same medical-dictionary-for-the-patronising-layman as the dvla. Nicely recited - I'm not sure why, but anyway...

Cheers.

Wee_Willy_Harris

You start by implying that she didn't have a siezure. Then you say she did, and a brain tumour.

You asked about how to gather the info held by the DVLA, in post #2, #4, #6 and #9 you were advised on how to do it. The fact that you do not agree with the advice given doesn't alter its validity.

Although aware of the criteria the DVLA use for siezures, I had a quick look just to ensure the info I had was up to date. I relayed that info to you as you seemed unaware of it and it formed the backbone of your issue, so I thought it would help you understand the passage of events. Obviously, I'm very sorry to have used a source that you find unworthy, but the info IS accurate, which IS the main thing. I'm surprised you weren't already aware of it, the problem being so close to your heart.

I don't really know what else you are expecting.

kwaks

Hi pubjoe.

I think I see and understand your problem here.

After your |GF did everything correctly in surrendering her licence, recieved it back only for it to be revoked again. (cost you money by the DVLA ineptitude in giving it back prematurely). Then, to add insult to injury the DVLA are still refusing to return the licence due to some misinformation they have.

Now the posts above have given you the correct route to go, though were lacking some empathy.

Get the SA request sent off, get a copy of the information the DVLA are basing the decision on. I for one will not be surprised if the Department which NEVER makes mistakes has read the posted date of a report rather than the report date or put the wrong persons report against your GF.

pubjoe

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

You start by implying that she didn't have a siezure. Then you say she did, and a brain tumour.

You asked about how to gather the info held by the DVLA, in post #2, #4, #6 and #9 you were advised on how to do it. The fact that you do not agree with the advice given doesn't alter its validity.

Although aware of the criteria the DVLA use for siezures, I had a quick look just to ensure the info I had was up to date. I relayed that info to you as you seemed unaware of it and it formed the backbone of your issue, so I thought it would help you understand the passage of events. Obviously, I'm very sorry to have used a source that you find unworthy, but the info IS accurate, which IS the main thing. I'm surprised you weren't already aware of it, the problem being so close to your heart.

I don't really know what else you are expecting.

In my post right above yours I explain that I appreciate the advice, I hoped that there was a quicker way to gain cooperation from the dvla and that my reason for hesitation is due to not only the process of receiving the first information, but the inevitable (and hopeless - it already took 10 Months to get any specific information out of them) battle that will follow.

I didn't disagree with the advice. But I do disagree with YOUR rude attitude.

and it goes without saying that I'm not happy about the fact Lu is made to begin another letter headed paper chase.

I don't really know what else you are expecting.

unsarcastic advice?

Definately not condescending remarks from you anyway.

pubjoe

kwaks wrote: »

Hi pubjoe.

I think I see and understand your problem here.

After your |GF did everything correctly in surrendering her licence, recieved it back only for it to be revoked again. (cost you money by the DVLA ineptitude in giving it back prematurely). Then, to add insult to injury the DVLA are still refusing to return the licence due to some misinformation they have.

Now the posts above have given you the correct route to go, though were lacking some empathy.

Get the SA request sent off, get a copy of the information the DVLA are basing the decision on. I for one will not be surprised if the Department which NEVER makes mistakes has read the posted date of a report rather than the report date or put the wrong persons report against your GF.

Thank you very much.

Yes, you've wrapped up the situation nicely. Also, the £5 cost is really irritating. But overall it's the stress involved more than anything... It's at the point where it could actually do more harm than good to continue with the stress.

The DVLA have totally messed her about and we can't do anything about it (it feels), yet we're now going to pay them to further blunder about.

But your right. Got to keep at it I suppose.

Wee_Willy_Harris

pubjoe wrote: »

In my post right above yours I explain that I appreciate the advise, I hoped that there was a quicker way to gain cooperation from the dvla and that my reason for hesitation is due to not only the process of receiving the first information, but the inevitable (and hopeless - it already took 10 Months to get any specific information out of them) battle that will follow.

I didn't disagree with the advice. But I do disagree with YOUR rude attitude.

and it goes without saying that I'm not happy about the fact Lu is made to begin another letter headed paper chase.


unsarcastic advice?

Definately not condescending remarks from you anyway.

OK. Fair comment. Please disregard any percieved sarcasm.

The DPA is in place to PROTECT your gf's information from people she may rather not share it with. In order to do so, there has to be an element of control. That control cannot be achieved by telephone alone, so they need the request in writing. This is done for 2 reasons. Firstly to ensure that the person requesting is entitled to the information. Secondly so that there is a paper trail of any request should the need to establish who/what/why/when arise. With no disrespect intended, over the phone, both you AND your gf COULD be anyone trying to glean information for any number of inappropriate reasons. The real benefit for SAR users is that a person will be tasked with digging out ALL information heald on your gf. This means that, whilst the delay is frustrating, the result is FULL disclosure, which may include useful information you may not have asked about over the phone.

Wee_Willy_Harris

pubjoe wrote: »

Thank you very much.

Yes, you've wrapped up the situation nicely. Also, the £5 cost is really irritating. But overall it's the stress involved more than anything... It's at the point where it could actually do more harm than good to continue with the stress.

The DVLA have totally messed her about and we can't do anything about it (it feels), yet we're now going to pay them to further blunder about.

But your right. Got to keep at it I suppose.

The DVLA will have to pay someone to source and collate ALL information held, in ALL formats. It then needs approval from their legal team to ensure no 3rd party info is included. To get all that for £5 is a bargain. It'll cost them far more to do. They charge £25 for just a copy of a V5.

pubjoe

Tbh, I felt at my wits end when I started this thread.

If the dvla had been consistent, clear and professional themselves in the first place, I would be a lot more accepting.

kwaks

pubjoe wrote: »

Tbh, I felt at my wits end when I started this thread.

If the dvla had been consistent, clear and professional themselves in the first place, I would be a lot more accepting.

Come on Joe, be realistic. The DVLA do not make mistakes, all their rules are consistant and clear, they are very professional and knowledgable and the complaints record they hold is fantastic.

Or is that because they self regulate and choose only to include complaints recieved in writing?

I am afraid your expectation of the DVLA is too high. Personally I now visit my local office if I want anything done other than tax disc renewals (which believe it or not they have screwed up in the past for me).

Keep at them Joe, there must be at least one person working there who has a modicum of intelligence.