LICENSING LESSONS
cause, address recurrence risk, explain whether the trigger is reliably avoidable and give a clear opinion on the risk of sudden incapacity while driving.
Evidence that somebody simply feels well is of little assistance. The issue is the probability of recurrence.
Mental health conditions and medication
Mental health illustrates why diagnosis alone should not determine an application. Some anxiety and depressive conditions can be compatible with professional driving, while more severe illness may require a period of stability and specialist evidence. Medication is likewise not automatically disqualifying; the relevant question is whether the condition or treatment impairs safe driving.
An applicant recovering from a significant depressive episode may therefore require detailed psychiatric evidence addressing diagnosis, treatment, relapse history,
The applicant must do more than cast doubt on the council’s position. The evidence must provide a positive basis for concluding that licensing does not compromise public safety.
The strongest evidence will usually come from the relevant specialist and engage directly with the particular Group 2 criterion. Occupational health evidence, a practical driving assessment and a demonstrably safe driving history may add weight, but none substitutes for proper medical evidence where risk remains unresolved.
A shorter licence may sometimes assist stability, insight, medication and current
functional risk. A bare statement that the applicant is “doing better” is unlikely to carry much weight.
Some Group 2 failures will remain very difficult to overcome
Discretion should not be confused with dilution of the medical standard.
Conditions involving a meaningful risk of sudden disabling events, such as recurrent unexplained blackouts, uncontrolled hypoglycaemia or active seizure risk, present an obvious public safety concern. An authority is entitled to ask why it should accept a risk for fare paying passengers which the national medical framework would not accept for a bus or lorry driver.
In such cases, the fact that Group 2 operates through policy rather than an express statutory prohibition may make little practical difference.
Individual assessment exists to permit lawful judgement, not to take chances with public safety.
What evidential threshold is required? There is no separate statutory standard of proof for a medical departure. The wider suitability decision is made on the balance of probabilities, and the authority must be positively satisfied that the applicant is fit and proper. The DfT’s statutory standards make clear that where the decision maker is left genuinely 50/50, the applicant should not be licensed.
PHTM OCTOBER 2026
Section 53 of the 1976 Act permits a driver’s licence to be granted for less than the ordinary three-year period where the authority considers that appropriate in the circumstances. That can assist where the driver is presently considered safe but continuing medical review is justified.
It should not, however, become a disguised
probationary licence or a means of licensing someone whose present medical fitness remains unresolved. The DfT likewise cautions against the use of probation- ary driver licences. A shorter licence manages review; it does not cure risk.
Medical fitness requires a decision, not merely a tick box
Group 2 is a sensible starting point and, in most cases, will also be the finishing point. But difficult cases require more than a mechanical comparison with a medical form.
The statutory scheme leaves the licensing authority with responsibility for deciding whether the individual can safely and properly be licensed. For an applicant who falls outside Group 2, the real question is whether there is sufficiently persuasive, condition-specific evidence to justify departure while allowing the authority to remain positively satisfied that public safety is protected. That is a demanding threshold. Properly so.
I advise taxi and private hire drivers where medical issues have resulted in delayed, refused, suspended or contested licence
applications, including cases
requiring specialist evidence and representations before licensing committees or on appeal. If a medical condition is affecting your licence or application, please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss the evidence and the options available.
23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
