I didn't appeal to a magistrates court, I have applied twice to get my licence back, the first time it was denied as my doctor (psychiatrist) put on the form that I had smoked cannabis in the previous 6 months this was in jan 2013, the second time I started the application in May 2013 it took until late October to reply, they were requesting I go for another medical where I would have to give a urine sample have a blood test and remove my clothes? I rang and inquired why I would have to go through all this and to inform them I have a fear of needles, I was told they would send me another letter with the ammendment of not giving blood, I never received this letter. I received a letter in late December saying as I hadn't attended the medical I have to re apply and that I may want to take legal advice. I still would like an answer to my question of was it legal for them to take my license in the first place, I suffered a breakdown in October 2009, I informed the dvla in March 2010 of my breakdown, I heard nothing from the dvla until August 2011 around the time coincedantly that I was in employment tribunal for unfair dismisal (which I won) but since I have had no licence my return to work has been impossible and as a result my mental health has suffered greatly
But I have not had at any time any of my doctors declaring I am unfit to drive, in fact on the contrary I have sent the dvla letters from my gp saying I am fit to drive, my psychiatrist has also stated I am fit to drive?
My gp declared in writing from the original time probably early 2012, so are you saying if I now get another declaration I should be okay? and why do I have to attend a medical anyway if in their enquiries my doctors have said I am fit to drive?
I have no problem with having any test whatsoever with my g.p but I am not being given that option?
It has been unfair all the way, so you don't think I should go to the magistrate court?