Taxi Driver Online

A driver declared about 3-5 years ago that he was nearly blind in one eye.

He is now totally blind in that eye but, as he hasn't yet had a periodic medical, has failed to inform the LA, a 'public spirited' colleague did that for him!! The LA have removed his HC licence with immediate effect because the authority use group 2 medical standards (??).

Is the LA's action legal? Has he any avenues of appeal/reinstatement open to him?

I am not sure about the legality of taken his badge of him but in Dundee we have two drivers who have only one eye.We also have another driver who has only one arm.

we also have 2 drivers in our district with only one eye.

_________________
Grandad,

In my view it's legal if the council has a policy in place, and even if thgey didn't they can take his license away due to non-disclosure.

He can appeal to the Mags court, but if he didn't inform the council about his illness, then it will be a hard to succeed.

I wish him well.

_________________
IDFIMH

each, or between them?...

if each, can they double-man and claim a working pair?..

What about, and this may have already been asked.

The LA adopt a new policy and it then includes drivers that may have had eyesight issues that are no longer acceptable under the new policy, but acceptable under the old one?

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I suspect the Non-Disclosure was the reason. The LA will use this as the ace up the sleeve if it went to court. I think the driver would be advised to appeal the decision, through the LA appeals system.
He could quote other bodies that allow ppl to drive with only one eye i.e. DVLA, VOSA. Having already licensed him previously the LA would be on thin ice. I think they will hope the driver in question just slips away quietly without a whimper.

There's been a case here and the driver lost his badge, as the LA brought in the new (at the time) DVLA group 2 (I think) medical.

The point I make is, if the driver declared the problem, just because a LA raises the bar, should that mean a driver can no longer be licensed, even though the eyesight issue was never a problem before the new policy?

Has a driver a 'reasonable expectation' ?

Can the council use its discretion?

I say yes to both.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

we've got a one armed driver in ours. does that make it a draw with 'tone?

_________________
My heart is heavy, but my consience clear,
I voted Yes, without any fear.

If your LA uses the 'Red Book' as I know it (the same one as for lorry drivers), & depending on the length of time he has been a licensed driver, then I'm pretty sure that they have 'grandfather rights' in those & the fact that he has previously advised them of the problem is in his favour.

The big question in my mind is; has he informed DVLA of his old problem (failing sight in one eye), his now new problem (total loss of sight in one eye) & if so have they let him keep his DVLA licence, asked him to be re-assessed & generally what is the situation with his DVLA licence.

Because if he has made a full disclosure to DVLA, which he should have done, & they have not banned him from driving on the roads, then the licence should not have been taken from him due to the 'grandfather rights', IF he has been a licensed driver LONGER than the adoption of the 'Red Book' medical by the LA.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Ah but how many drivers have you got with one BALL

You have to look at the council's policy regarding medicals... for example... if the council says that a driver must have a medical every five years and that he must pass at group 2 standard and that is all they say .....he would have grounds for appeal .... because they would not have said he must notify them of any changes in between medicals........ it's all in the wording....

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Strangly, that has never come up in conversation.

_________________
Grandad,

Or no BALLS at all as the case may be

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Could he bring the case under the DDA, I think he could and get loads of compo