DVLA withholding personal medical information.

jimbms

Just to assist with a little clarification, she who must be obeyed works for our equivelent of the DVLA but the rules on this are the same. They are allowed without the applicants permission to seek suplementary medical information for the applicants GP, health care team and/or consultant, in most cases they pay a fee of £25. Now this is where the 2 locations differ, whereas you was charged for the info etc here they always contact the applicant to tell them they are seeking this information and from whom and no fee is charged to the applicant, the maximum time taken for any application is around 48hrs and a full explanation is always given in the event of a application being put on hold for a time period. So it seems like your new bloke Cameron is right to get rid of some of these over officious buffoons and have a more personal service because it does actually work.

Wee_Willy_Harris

pubjoe wrote: »

Your attitude would maybe be slightly more tolerable if you had actually read this sentance:



...I didn't really want to post any backstory as it's clouding the issue. She did not have a seizure in December, yet the DVLA have recently informed her that she did.

I see what you're saying now and I have misunderstood. However, the presentation of the circs could have been clearer. But, you know how to get the info you need so I'm going to but out.

pubjoe

jimbms wrote: »

here they always contact the applicant to tell them they are seeking this information and from whom and no fee is charged to the applicant, the maximum time taken for any application is around 48hrs and a full explanation is always given in the event of a application being put on hold for a time period.

Yes, that sounds like a much more transparent and reasonable way to go about it.

pubjoe

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I see what you're saying now and I have misunderstood. However, the presentation of the circs could have been clearer. But, you know how to get the info you need so I'm going to but out.

No worries. (though maybe I'm misunderstanding too )

I should have been clearer. Otherwise people read the wrong thing.

I'm sorry too. Thanks for the information you've given.

king100

pubjoe wrote: »

...I didn't really want to post any backstory as it's clouding the issue. She did not have a seizure in December, yet the DVLA have recently informed her that she did.

This fits right inline with the DVLA and there utter contempt.

Maybe they had a P.I. follow her and obviously he was trained and carried a portal CT scanner to determine that she had a seizure.

Maybe she just sneezed and that was enough for him.


Contest this all the way.