Recurring concern

Unreliable DVLA medical fitness notification arrangements

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 8 Aug 2014•Latest report 27 Apr 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in the DVLA-related process for identifying medically relevant driving risks, advising patients about driving and their notification duties, and notifying the DVLA or DVA when appropriate, including unclear or poorly understood professional guidance and ineffective notification arrangements.

Not included

  • Excludes general clinical advice or diagnosis where no driving-safety or DVLA notification connection is identified.
  • Excludes DVLA licence re-issue assessment, audit and medical-review failures unless they directly concern notification of medically relevant driving risks.
  • Excludes driver training, vehicle safety, road design and enforcement concerns unrelated to the DVLA medical-fitness notification process.
  • Excludes failures occurring after an appropriate DVLA notification has been reliably made, including later licensing decisions.
Reports
15

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
24

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2014–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
44

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Department for Transport11
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency5
General Medical Council2
General Optical Council2
Department of Health and Social Care1
Emsworth Surgery1
GP1
Home Office1
Middleton Lodge Practice1
NHS England1
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust1
Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Bedfordshire and Luton

    AI-generated summary

    JOAN WILLIAMS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    JOAN WILLIAMS was driving on the A5120 on 19 August 2019 when her car collided head-on with a heavy goods vehicle. She sustained multiple injuries and died in hospital on 3 September 2019. The concerns included that, despite her Alzheimer’s dementia diagnosis and advice to notify the DVLA and stop driving, she continued to drive and the DVLA was not informed; the report also raised whether diagnoses should be referred directly to the DVLA or DVA.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to require direct referral of Alzheimer’s dementia diagnoses to the DVLA/DVA

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) Current legislation makes the driver legally responsible for telling the DVLA or DVA about Alzheimer’s dementia. Doctors are only required to alert patients to such a condition that can affect their ability to drive and to remind them of their duty to tell the appropriate agency. Doctors are only told that they should disclose this information directly to the DVA or DVLA without consent IF they are aware that the patient is continuing to drive and they consider it to be in the public interest to do so; (4) The Alzheimer’s Society reports that, in 2013, there were 815,827 people with dementia in the UK (including 1 in every 14 of the population aged 65 years and over) and that, if current trends continue, the number of people with dementia in the UK is forecast to increase to 1,142,677 by 2025 and 2,092,945 by 2051, which will be an increase of 40% over the next 12 years and of 156% over the next 38 years. (5) GPs are extremely busy professionals and may not always be made aware of a patient’s day to day activities. It was discussed at the Inquest that this tragedy, which involved not only the death of the deceased but also the death of her husband, might suggest that the public interest could be better served by the introduction of legislation to require ALL such diagnoses to be referred directly to the DVA/DVLA from the Memory Assessment Clinic and/or GP. ”

    Source location

    JOAN WILLIAMS · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Mandatory doctor notification of dementia diagnoses is not planned because current notification arrangements are considered effective and sufficient.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “There are no plans to place a legal obligation on doctors to notify a diagnosis of dementia. The current arrangements work well by respecting the rights of those diagnosed with dementia who retain insight, to be trusted to notify the DVLA. Where a doctor assesses that insight has been lost, a notification to the DVLA by the doctor is already allowed in the public interest.”

    Source location

    Department for Transport Response
    Page 3 · response
    Published 26 August 2020

    Open published response

  2. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    AI-generated summary

    Henry Prow · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Henry Prow died at the scene after his car collided with a roundabout while he was returning from a medical appointment. A medical event before the collision could not be excluded. Concerns were raised about mechanisms for medical review of drivers with deteriorating or fluctuating health, the potential impact of licence surrender, and whether required vehicle modifications remained appropriate and were being used.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of the driver and treating clinicians reporting pathway to obtain relevant medical fitness information

    Wider context from the report

    “At the inquest concerns were raised by the police and a friend as to the criteria required by the DVLA and Department of Transport for the issuing and surrendering of driving licences and the terms and conditions for ensuring appropriate modification of driver’s vehicles. Mr Prow had been a very fit and active man and worked as a training instructor in the Army for 3 years. As a result of his deteriorating poor health he lost his mobility and he was keen not to lose his driving license which would reduce his independence. At inquest it was considered that the collision was possibly preceded by Mr Prow having a medical issue/event. The DVLA appears to have limited mechanisms for drivers to be formally medically reviewed for the purpose of being medically fit to drive. In particular in cases where drivers have deteriorating health or fluctuating health (of which they may not have insight) as in the case of Mr Prow. It is understood that at present the treating GP/doctors or the driver themselves have a duty to advise the DVLA of medical issues which can affect a person’s ability to drive. A driver’s voluntary surrender of a driving licence (especially in a rural area with little public transport) may have a serious detrimental effect on their health and social/employment situation making it unrealistic expectation on the driver in many cases. There was concern, that the driver's GP/doctors could have a conflict of interests in such situations as they would have a duty to inform the DVLA of medical issues which could result in the surrender of the driving licence which could/would result in deterioration of the patient/doctor relationship e.g. such as patients withholding significant medical information with their doctors for fear of losing their licence. There were also concerns that there appeared to be no mechanism for ensuring the required modification to the vehicles were still relevant to the vehicle that they were driving at the time (he had changed cars since requirement made and his health had deteriorated) and were appropriately in place and used . ”

    Source location

    Henry Prow · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  3. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    AI-generated summary

    Geoffrey Frank Taylor · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Geoffrey Frank Taylor, aged 75, died from fatal injuries sustained in a road traffic collision while driving in Cornwall on 8 August 2016. Concerns were raised about the criteria and processes for issuing and surrendering driving licences after medical events, including potential conflicts for GPs and difficulties faced by elderly drivers who may be reluctant to report health problems or surrender their licences.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of elderly drivers to recognise and disclose health conditions affecting driving

    Wider context from the report

    “At the inquest concerns were raised by the police and family members as to the criteria required by the DVLA and Department of Transport for the issuing and surrendering of driving licences. In this case Mr Taylor had voluntarily given up his licence after medical events on a number of occasions. It was considered that a good number of drivers may not have given up their licence for fear or losing their independence putting their own health and other at risk. There was further concern that the driver’s GP could have a conflict of interests in such situations as they would have a duty to inform the DVLA of medical issues which can affect a person’s ability to drive, which could result in deterioration of the GP relationship with the patient. This was thought to be of particular concern in the elderly who may or may not have insight into their failing health (e.g. eye sight, immobility) and who would be reluctant to voluntarily surrender their licence or inform their GP of significant medical events which would result in the surrendering of their licence. ”

    Source location

    Geoffrey Frank Taylor · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Conflict of interests affecting GPs’ reporting of driving-related medical issues

    Wider context from the report

    “At the inquest concerns were raised by the police and family members as to the criteria required by the DVLA and Department of Transport for the issuing and surrendering of driving licences. In this case Mr Taylor had voluntarily given up his licence after medical events on a number of occasions. It was considered that a good number of drivers may not have given up their licence for fear or losing their independence putting their own health and other at risk. There was further concern that the driver’s GP could have a conflict of interests in such situations as they would have a duty to inform the DVLA of medical issues which can affect a person’s ability to drive, which could result in deterioration of the GP relationship with the patient. This was thought to be of particular concern in the elderly who may or may not have insight into their failing health (e.g. eye sight, immobility) and who would be reluctant to voluntarily surrender their licence or inform their GP of significant medical events which would result in the surrendering of their licence. ”

    Source location

    Geoffrey Frank Taylor · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Developed straightforward processes for licence renewal, health investigations and voluntary licence surrender.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The DVLA has developed its processes to renew a licence, investigate health, or facilitate the surrender of a licence so as to be as straightforward as possible. Last year, it launched an online service allowing car and motorcycle drivers to notify the DVLA of a medical condition (the existing paper channel is still available). A key message of the campaign that launched the service was the importance of drivers speaking to their GPs about their health and driving.”

    Source location

    2017-0226-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
    Page 2 · response
    Published 6 October 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Launched an online service for car and motorcycle drivers to notify the DVLA of medical conditions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The DVLA has developed its processes to renew a licence, investigate health, or facilitate the surrender of a licence so as to be as straightforward as possible. Last year, it launched an online service allowing car and motorcycle drivers to notify the DVLA of a medical condition (the existing paper channel is still available). A key message of the campaign that launched the service was the importance of drivers speaking to their GPs about their health and driving.”

    Source location

    2017-0226-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
    Page 2 · response
    Published 6 October 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Published and publicised revised fitness-to-drive guidance for medical professionals through medical publications and professional organisations.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I recognise your concern that GPs could have a conflict of interest in notifying the DVLA of their patient’s medical condition. GPs play an important role in the driver licensing process by advising their patients of the implications of their condition on driving, the effect of any treatment or medication and whether they should notify the DVLA. The DVLA published “Assessing Fitness to Drive: a Guide for Medical Professionals”, in 2016.”

    Source location

    2017-0226-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
    Page 2 · response
    Published 6 October 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Existing licensing, medical assessment, notification and professional guidance arrangements address health-related driving fitness and GP reporting concerns.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “You asked that the Department look at the process for issuing driving licences to those with health conditions. By law, all drivers must meet the appropriate health standards for driving and a licence will only be issued to those who meet those standards. When applying for, or renewing a driving licence, applicants must declare whether they have any medical conditions. All drivers of any age also have a legal responsibility to notify the DVLA at any time of a health condition that affects safe driving. In this context, the DVLA will also investigate notifications from third parties, including concerned relatives, neighbours, police and health professionals. This recognises that there may be occasions where drivers do not notify the DVLA appropriately as they fear losing their licence or because a health condition affects their insight into their driving safety.”

    Source location

    2017-0226-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
    Page 1 · response
    Published 6 October 2017

    Open published response

  4. South Lincolnshire

    AI-generated summary

    Arenijus Nedzelskis · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Arenijus Nedzelskis, a lorry driver experiencing financial difficulties linked to spending on synthetic cannabinoids, was found hanging after an argument with his partner. The concerns were that 5F AKB-48 and 5F PB-22 were not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and that he had not reported his chronic misuse of cannabinoid receptor agonists to the DVLA Medical Branch.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to report chronic misuse of cannabinoid receptor agonists to the DVLA Medical Branch

    Wider context from the report

    “2 That the deceased had not reported his chronic misuse of cannabinoid receptor agonists to the DVLA Medical Branch. ”

    Source location

    Arenijus Nedzelskis · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  5. South Lincolnshire

    AI-generated summary

    Charles Albert William Pierson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    On 24 December 2013, Charles Albert William Pierson was involved in a vehicle collision in a Tesco car park. His seat belt had a clip that inhibited its proper operation, and he sustained a fractured sternum that led to his death; the report noted that such clips remained available for sale and their use was not presently unlawful.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of opticians to inform DVLA of findings indicating drivers did not meet vision standards

    Wider context from the report

    “A practitioner registered with the General Optical Council gave a statement to the effect that the deceased, when subject to an eye examination was able to meet the vision standard set for drivers by the DVLA. A review of his documented findings by DVLA staff indicated that was not the case. The DVLA opinion is that the deceased should have been informed by his optician to inform DVLA of the findings. This was not done and as a result the deceased continued to drive without a review of his vision defects by the DVLA. I should tell you that there is no evidence that his vision defects contributed to the collision that led to his death. ”

    Source location

    Charles Albert William Pierson · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026