PFD report

Henry Prow · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Sep 2017•Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised3

  1. Failure of the driver and treating clinicians reporting pathway to obtain relevant medical fitness information
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable DVLA medical fitness notification arrangements
  2. Lack of mechanisms for formal medical review of drivers with deteriorating or fluctuating health
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably assess driver fitness and driving safetyPart of recurring concern: Inadequate driver licensing controls for road safety
  3. Lack of mechanisms for ensuring required vehicle modifications remain relevant, in place and used
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. Action

    Review how medical-condition and disability driving-licence restrictions are communicated, particularly when drivers change cars.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 October 2017.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    Existing legal duties require drivers to use specified vehicle adaptations, providing the mechanism for ensuring adaptations are fitted and used appropriately.

    Stated by Department for TransportExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

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 . ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable DVLA medical fitness notification arrangements.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of mechanisms for formal medical review of drivers with deteriorating or fluctuating health

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 . ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably assess driver fitness and driving safety; Inadequate driver licensing controls for road safety.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of mechanisms for ensuring required vehicle modifications remain relevant, in place and used

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 . ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Review how medical-condition and disability driving-licence restrictions are communicated, particularly when drivers change cars.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Every time a driver renews their entitlement they are asked to confirm whether they require special controls to be able to safely control a vehicle and what these are. These would be checked and recorded on any subsequent driving licences issued. However, I can confirm that the DVLA is currently reviewing how restrictions imposed on driving licences as a result of a medical condition or disability are communicated to drivers, particularly when they change their cars.”

Source location

2017-0227-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 3 · 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 legal duties require drivers to use specified vehicle adaptations, providing the mechanism for ensuring adaptations are fitted and used appropriately.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You have also suggested that there should be mechanisms in place to ensure that any required modifications to a vehicle are still relevant and are fitted and used appropriately. By law, drivers must ensure that they are able to control a vehicle safely and be able to meet any conditions or restrictions on their licence. Drivers who require adaptations to their vehicle and whose licence is noted with the appropriate code can only legally drive a vehicle fitted with the specified adaptations. The police are responsible for enforcing compliance with the requirements of any restricted driving licence.”

Source location

2017-0227-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

Independent medical or driving assessments are already used in complex cases, so broader mandatory assessment is not adopted.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your report suggests that when deciding whether someone is medically fit to drive, consideration should be given to using independent medical assessment. I can confirm that in more complex cases, the DVLA already uses independent medical or driving assessments before deciding whether to issue a driving licence.”

Source location

2017-0227-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 1 · 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

The police, rather than the respondent, are responsible for enforcing restricted driving licence requirements concerning vehicle adaptations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You have also suggested that there should be mechanisms in place to ensure that any required modifications to a vehicle are still relevant and are fitted and used appropriately. By law, drivers must ensure that they are able to control a vehicle safely and be able to meet any conditions or restrictions on their licence. Drivers who require adaptations to their vehicle and whose licence is noted with the appropriate code can only legally drive a vehicle fitted with the specified adaptations. The police are responsible for enforcing compliance with the requirements of any restricted driving licence.”

Source location

2017-0227-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

Mandatory medical or practical assessments would not be introduced without evidence of improved road safety because they could be costly and overly bureaucratic.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The current process focuses on those drivers who have a medical condition. It is designed to be fair and proportionate without penalising those drivers with disabilities who continue to drive safely. There is little evidence to suggest that introducing a stricter regime which includes mandatory medical or practical driving assessments would improve road safety. To impose such a requirement without the appropriate evidence would be overly bureaucratic and potentially very costly. Britain’s roads are some of the safest in the world and our road safety record compares favourably with other countries with stricter and more intrusive driver licensing regimes.”

Source location

2017-0227-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 6 October 2017

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026