9. In response to a previous complaint from Mr E, DVLA explained in 2018 what should happen when he came to renew his driving licence in April 2019. DVLA said:
“once someone is an exceptional case, as in Mr E’s case, they remain so. The criteria to be considered are clear and defined; there is no option to ‘go back’ to being non-exceptional and also no reasoned basis to suppose that they will ever be able to submit a field test that can meet the standards.
“When Mr E re-applies for his licence he will be asked to complete questionnaires to confirm if there has been any change to his medical conditions. If there has been no change to his vision he will be considered as an exceptional case and will not require a further field of vision test. But if his vision, or any other medical condition has changed then we may need to make further enquiries.”
10. Mr E sent DVLA a completed questionnaire on vision. He also provided a letter from his ophthalmology consultant setting out the results of a review on 28 February 2019. The ophthalmologist said Mr E’s diabetic retinopathy remained stable since treatment in 2013 and he has no diabetic macular oedema. The letter also included information on Mr E’s visual acuity. In a covering letter Mr E told DVLA his licence renewal should be considered under the ‘exceptional circumstances’ rules. He said he would not be able to sit a visual field test as his neck problem will be with him for life and is still being managed by physiotherapy.
11. In response to our enquiries DVLA said its caseworker arranged appointments for Mr E to sit a visual field test despite the information in the covering letter and a medical coding on DVLA’s case management system that marked him as an exceptional case. DVLA said the caseworker’s action was inappropriate. We agree. DVLA should have accepted the confirmation given by Mr E and his ophthalmologist that his vision had not changed. This mistake was significant as it directly impacted on Mr E getting his licence renewed.
12. DVLA went on to miss at least three opportunities to correct its mistake. The first was on 25 April 2019 when a casework manager was asked to advise if the licence could be issued. The second was on 12 June 2019 when a medical adviser reviewed the case. DVLA told us its medical adviser should have appreciated that visual field testing was not required. The third opportunity was on 13 June 2019 when DVLA’s Vision Panel Secretary gave incorrect advice that DVLA should require Mr E to take a visual field test. DVLA told us its Vision Panel Secretary should have appreciated that visual field testing was not required.
13. DVLA’s failures explained above were a significant departure from what should have happened and this amounts to maladministration.
14. On the impact of those failings, Mr E told us DVLA’s actions caused stress, frustration and anxiety over knowing that he would lose his licence due to being required to sit a test that he could not do without experiencing pain and could not pass. We can see that Mrs E called DVLA nine times between 24 April and 4 July 2019. Mrs E told us she was frustrated by not being able to speak to the people making the decisions. In one call to DVLA on 6 June 2019, Mrs E explained the uncertainty over whether it would revoke Mr E’s licence meant he could not plan his work and this could cause them financial difficulties. We think DVLA’s records of these calls provide evidence that its actions did cause the negative impacts on Mr and Mrs E between 24 April and 23 July 2019.
Issue 2 – enquiries about diabetes
15. Mr E provided a completed diabetes questionnaire with his application. This included the signed agreement by Mr E to test his blood sugar level at times relevant to driving and a declaration that he understood the symptoms of hypoglycaemia.
16. DVLA’s caseworker accepted the questionnaire provided sufficient evidence that Mr E met the diabetes requirements. In response to our investigation DVLA confirmed that Mr E submitted a favourable diabetes questionnaire and further enquiries would not normally be required.
17. When dealing with the queries about vision in June 2019, DVLA’s medical adviser decided to start enquiries into Mr E’s diabetes. The reason for this was not documented at the time. When responding to these complaints, the medical adviser explained their reason was because ‘research carried out by the DFT has confirmed that if an individual has been on insulin for more than 15 years, the incidence of complications is increased’.
18. We think that is not an adequate reason for starting medical enquiries because it does not have regard to Mr E’s particular circumstances, the information he provided and declarations he made. We also note that DVLA’s operating instructions say it no longer uses a coding to flag that a driver has been on insulin for more than 15 years. This is because ‘this information is no longer required’.
19. We went on to consider Mr E’s complaint that DVLA should have made its medical enquiries to his consultant rather than his GP. This would have meant that DVLA would not have received wrong information from a locum GP that it used to revoke his licence. Mr and Mrs E told us this was an important point and they wanted to know what had gone wrong here.
20. DVLA’s diabetes questionnaire asks the driver who it should contact if it needs to investigate further. The options are the driver’s GP or their consultant. As Mr E had ticked ‘consultant’ he assumed any enquiries would be made to them.
21. DVLA told us that, where the driver has seen their healthcare professional in the last 12 months, it would send a questionnaire to the appropriate person (GP or consultant). Where the driver has not been seen within the last 12 months, DVLA would request the GP carries out an examination and completes and returns a questionnaire. DVLA said this is because GPs can provide the information it needs and do so quicker and at less cost.
22. DVLA told us it should have sent a questionnaire to Mr E’s consultant because they had seen him within the last 12 months. It thought it was more likely this did not happen because of ‘clerk error, or misinterpretation of the doctor’s instructions rather than a wider failure within our process’. We found errors on at least three points, those being:
· DVLA’s doctor asked for ‘DIAB3 please’ which is a GP questionnaire without an examination. This shows they did not act on the information Mr E provided that he had seen his consultant in the last 12 months.
· The clerk requested an examination by the GP. They also did not act on the information Mr E provided and went back to the doctor to query what was needed.
· When DVLA received the questionnaire from the GP it recorded ‘not clear if this was completed at an exam as no date given’. It did not check this with the GP.
23. This provides Mr and Mrs E with the explanation of what went wrong.
24. Based on the evidence above we found there was no reason for DVLA to start medical enquiries into the impact of diabetes on Mr E’s ability to drive safely. Its enquiries were misdirected to his GP rather than the consultant who he had seen within the last 12 months. These were significant departures from what should have happened and, as such, it is maladministration.
25. The clear impact of DVLA’s mistake is that Mr E’s licence was wrongly revoked on 8 July 2019. The injustice to Mr E is he lost the use of his driving licence for 15 days. This would have caused significant problems in both family and working life.
Improvements to the exceptional vision process
26. DVLA has provided us with information on the work within its Driver’s Medical Group to make exceptional vision cases more easily identifiable and help make the process clearer. This included releasing new operating instructions in February 2021. Other actions were ongoing with the aim of being completed as soon as technical issues have been solved or pilot projects completed.