DVLA wrong to revoke bulimia woman's licence

Sheriff rules authority unreasonable in acting on psychiatrist's letter alone

News, 28 December 2005

An Ayrshire woman who suffers from the eating disorder bulimia has won back her driving licence after a sheriff upheld her appeal against its revocation by the DVLA.

Sheriff Robert Vaughan held that the licensing authority had acted unreasonably in deciding to revoke Gillian Carruth's licence after receiving a letter from her psychiatrist Dr Toni Lock.

Ms Carruth had visited Dr Lock to discuss what further treatment for her condition was required and at the end of the consultation Dr Lock had asked if she was still driving, expressing the opinion she should not be. After Ms Carruth said there was "no chance" of her giving up, Dr Lock had written to the DVLA requesting the revocation.

Before the sheriff Ms Carruth led evidence from her GP who stated that Ms Carruth's condition was chronic but usually stable. Her low potassium level (the basis of Dr Lock's concern as it affects the strength and tone of the muscles) was something Ms Carruth had learned to live with and take responsibvle decisions about driving on a day to day basis.

The sheriff said he understood that there would be concerned reaction by the DVLA in response to the letter received from Dr Lock, but took the view that the revocation of Ms Carruth's licence was an excessive reaction. Dr Lock was a psychiatrist and did not physically examine Ms Carruth, and no further steps were taken by the DVLA to make further enquiries as to her fitness to drive.

Ms Carruth, who had been driving for 20 years with a clean licence, was someone who relied heavily upon being able to drive her car. "I am given a wide discretion to make any order I see fit. Although I have some sympathy with the submission that the DVLA could not ignore the information and recommendation from Dr Lock, I cannot accept that the decision to revoke her licence is a correct one, or indeed a reasonable one", the sheriff concluded.

Sheriff Vaughan's decision can be read at http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/B467_05.html .