"Hertfordshire Action on Disability" (HAD)

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)

8 December 2011.

Dear Anne Main MP,

I will see you tomorrow at 9.30.

It is crazy that I did not tell you that after preventing me from driving for three years, the DVLA returned my driving licence when I had then failed the two driving tests they authorised.

I start with the premise that my MP has far too much to do, and also has limited power. Within those limitations, I can see two actions which might be relatively easy and useful.

1. If the Minister of Transport has power over the DVLA, get him to tell the DVLA that they must stop wasting the time of MPs by having their brochure send constituents to their MP and thence to the Ombudsman. Their brochure "Customer Service Guide" must tell those disaffected to go to the magistrates’ courts.

2. Private Member’s Bill or suchlike to change legislation so that someone disaffected with the DVLA will go to a tribunal rather than to the courts. I believe that the part of the present relevant law which led me to the Magistrates’ Courts is clause 91. As my solicitor says, a magistrate lacks the competence to deal with such disputes. My case was a blatant case of persistent failure of common sense in HAD and in the DVLA, and was not a matter of law. We need a tribunal with common sense and in my case not needing much skill in anything else, even in the law. A specific failure of common sense was the persistent failure to distinguish between medical condition and driving competence.

I think that you probably have no time for more in my case, so I shall make further comments on an orphan web page.

3 4 5. Added items for action below.

See you.

Ivor Catt

3. The problem was exacerbated by the refusal of my GP Dr. Ferguson of St. Albans or my surgeon Mr. Livingstone of Watford Hospital to counter the medical judgement of two driving examiners at HAD. I understand that they presumably feared that they could then be forced to attend court. Thus, they deferred to the medical judgement of two driving examiners with no medical qualifications, which made it possible for Dr.Hanley of the DVLA to be misled.. Perhaps we need a change in the law if at present there is no way of getting a professional to give a written opinion with the guarantee of no risk of having to attend court. Dr. Hanley felt able to ignore the medical opinion of my friend Dr. Hillman, who attended me regularly in hospital. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0anhill.htm http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0anhill.pdf . His reputation in the matter of the brain is worldwide.

4. The driving test house (HAD) should be required to send any documented test results to the DVLA. Had the DVLA seen these documents, the contradiction with the HAD brief report would have been obvious to them.

5. The DVLA “Driving Assessment Report” no. D794 is absurdly brief following a two hour test for which DVLA paid HAD £180 of taxpayers’money. See 6 , 7 . “Cognitive and Perceptual Assessment”, reporting on a one hour £90 test, generated a response of ten words including “Significant Deficit Noted” (twice) and “Extremely Inappropriate”. This DVLA form has to be enlarged. The DVLA pro forma D794 is ambiguous as to which part refers to the in office (brain) test and which to the driving test, enabling Matt Miller to square the circle.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

My medical disaster should have caused brain damage, but did not do so. 17 Months .

Since I was aged over 70 the DVLA came to enquire of my GP. He wrote; “I suggest a driving test.” That began the £10,000 three year saga.

After a delay of one year, the DVLA arranged a two part test with HAD, who deal with adapting cars for disabled drivers, falsely indicating to HAD that I was disabled and aged 82 not 72.

I passed the first in office test for brain damage with essentially 100% scores, as are shown in the written results. HAD Test . I failed the subsequent driving test. Two examiners were present throughout, Sean Lawrence and his superior Matt Miller.

HAD sent a very brief alarmist report to the DVLA without the test results, saying that I was a raving maniac and should never be on the road. HAD Test . They had no medical qualifications. The DVLA’s Dr. Hanley, deducing that I had damage to the front lobe of my brain, said I must not be on the road on any terms, but could just have a second driving test but no prior lessons. HAD said I was so dangerous that they refused to test me again. When I failed the second test elsewhere, DVLA Dr. Hanley said I must now not only not practise driving or have driving lessons, but must have no further driving tests. Hanley told my solicitor that I had damage to the front lobe of my brain. Hanley agreed that a test by a neuropsychologist would be a good idea. I paid £1,000 for a test by a neuropsychologist in the next road to Harley Street. His very exhaustive test led to an exhaustive report which reported no damage whatsoever to my brain. Dr. Anderson, 8 Devonshire Place, The Basement, LPP Consulting, London, W1G 6HP. Dr. Hanley ignored this report.

When, after bureaucratic and other delays of a year or two, for instance time with the Ombudsman, none of them caused by me, I finally took the DVLA to court, their Dr. Hanley conceded that I could have driving lessons and possibly another test, depending on the report of my driving instructor. At that point the senior HAD driving examiner Matt Miller reinforced the 6 , 7 alarmist report a year or two back by his subordinate Sean Lawrence. He now said that between the in office test, where we now knew I scored nearly 100% and my partner Libuse Mikova was a witness, and the later driving test (with no witnesses documentary or human), “there was a drastic change in behaviour”. The DVLA pro forma D794 is ambiguous as to which part refers to the in office (brain) test and which to the driving test, enabling Matt Miller to square the circle. He realised he and Sean Lawrence could not be seen to have reported “Reasoning Ability; Significant Deficit Noted” and “Behaviour; Extremely Inappropriate” for the period when I was scoring nearly 100% on complex tests with a witness present. Then with the court hearing approaching, on the basis of my driving instructor’s report alone and no test passed, the DVLA gave me back my driving licence.

When I asked the head of the DVLA to investigate the contradiction between the HAD report and my scores during the HAD test (which they had not previously received), he did not reply.

When I asked the head of HAD to investigate the contradiction between the HAD report and my scores during the HAD test, she did not reply. When I put the matter onto the www, she got her lawyers to threaten legal action unless I removed it, which I ignored. HAD False Report . HAD is a registered charity.

Cameo. Ridiculous.

At one point Catt had been failed by Miller and Lawrence of HAD, their then generating an alarmist report. After a while he was told by a junior in the DVLA that he could have a second driving test, but would not be allowed to practise driving or have any driving lessons. When asked to confirm this decision, she did so. Later the DVLA’s Dr J G G Hanley discovered this decision and tried to cover up by saying that if I failed the second test, he would consider letting me have driving lessons before a third test. In the event, when I marginally failed the second test, he decided that I would never again be allowed to practise driving, or have driving lessons, or have a driving test. At that point I took the DVLA to court. Ridiculous.