good evening a friend of mine surrendered his lorry license c+e due to eyesight trouble through diabetes, he has now had corrective surgery and all is fine with the eyes, he has had his motor cycle, car and trailer entitlement returned up to 3.5 tonne, he enquired about his 7.5 ton entitlement but was told as this is now classed as an lgv and he had surrendered it that’s why its not on his new licence. But he could have a medical and request his full c+e entitlement back. he only wanted his 7.5 in case of wanting to rent a removal truck when he downsizes, has anyone come across this before and what did they do ?
hotel magnum:
good evening a friend of mine surrendered his lorry license c+e due to eyesight trouble through diabetes, he has now had corrective surgery and all is fine with the eyes, he has had his motor cycle, car and trailer entitlement returned up to 3.5 tonne, he enquired about his 7.5 ton entitlement but was told as this is now classed as an lgv and he had surrendered it that’s why its not on his new licence. But he could have a medical and request his full c+e entitlement back. he only wanted his 7.5 in case of wanting to rent a removal truck when he downsizes, has anyone come across this before and what did they do ?
Yes I have heard of this before from others and it is standard practice as well as being common sense
For a medical condition it would make no sense to revoke the LGV C1 gained by passing a test (C and/or CE) but not revoking the LGV C1 got for free with a pre 1997 licence as the medical condition applies to LGV
ROG:
For a medical condition it would make no sense to revoke the LGV C1 gained by passing a test (C and/or CE) but not revoking the LGV C1 got for free with a pre 1997 licence as the medical condition applies to LGV
Surely pre 1997 7.5t entitlement can’t be subject to LGV medical requirements ?. 
Carryfast:
ROG:
For a medical condition it would make no sense to revoke the LGV C1 gained by passing a test (C and/or CE) but not revoking the LGV C1 got for free with a pre 1997 licence as the medical condition applies to LGVSurely pre 1997 7.5t entitlement can’t be subject to LGV medical requirements ?.
Yes it can be if the DVLA medical deem it so for medical safety
If medical safety when driving LGVs is an issue then it covers all LGV entitlements so it would not be common sense to have a test passed LGV C1 different to a pre 1997 LGV C1
ROG:
Carryfast:
Surely pre 1997 7.5t entitlement can’t be subject to LGV medical requirements ?.Yes it can be if the DVLA medical deem it so for medical safety
If medical safety when driving LGVs is an issue then it covers all LGV entitlements so it would not be common sense to have a test passed LGV C1 different to a pre 1997 LGV C1
How does do they enforce that in practice Rog.If someone has a pre 1997 licence then that licence is obviously valid until it expires.With no LGV type medical needed for the life of the licence and can be used just as it would have been in the day ?.If not surely they’d have to send out a notice that anyone intending to use a pre 1997 licence to drive a 7.5 tonner has to report to a doctor for an LGV medical.Which I’ve never seen.
As for common sense the problem is arguably counting 7.5 tonners as a class of LGV’s.Bearing in mind it has to be a no brainer to take a seperate test with a 7.5 thereby only getting a C1 instead of a 12 tonner covering a C.
Carryfast:
How does do they enforce that in practice Rog.
Come again? 
Evil8Beezle:
Carryfast:
How does do they enforce that in practice Rog.Come again?
As I said I’ve never received any notice saying a medical is needed to drive a 7.5 tonner on my car licence just as before.So how would they enforce it ?.
So you don’t read what you write…
As for the discussion, the DVLA have decided to make it a level playing field for all.
Whether you had a C1 given to you because your an old ■■■■, or whether you had to earn it.
The logic isn’t complicated mate… 
Evil8Beezle:
:lol:Whether you had a C1 given to you because your an old ■■■■, or whether you had to earn it.
The logic isn’t complicated mate…
So hypothetically I used my car licence to drive a 7.5 tonner tomorrow having never been informed by DVLA that its 7.5 t entitlement is subject to a medical just as it wasn’t before.How does that make anyone liable to enforcement action for driving a 7.5 tonner without a medical ?.
Carryfast:
Evil8Beezle:
:lol:Whether you had a C1 given to you because your an old ■■■■, or whether you had to earn it.
The logic isn’t complicated mate…So hypothetically I used my car licence to drive a 7.5 tonner tomorrow having never been informed by DVLA that its 7.5 t entitlement is subject to a medical just as it wasn’t before.How does that make anyone liable to enforcement action for driving a 7.5 tonner without a medical ?.
It doesn’t and breaking news carryfast: THE WORLD IS NOT PERFECT! 
Evil8Beezle:
Carryfast:
Evil8Beezle:
:lol:Whether you had a C1 given to you because your an old ■■■■, or whether you had to earn it.
The logic isn’t complicated mate…So hypothetically I used my car licence to drive a 7.5 tonner tomorrow having never been informed by DVLA that its 7.5 t entitlement is subject to a medical just as it wasn’t before.How does that make anyone liable to enforcement action for driving a 7.5 tonner without a medical ?.
It doesn’t and breaking news carryfast: THE WORLD IS NOT PERFECT!
But like Rog you seemed to be suggesting it’s a ‘level playing field’ in that regard whether pre 1997 or post 1997. 
While if it’s all about common sense I’d prefer the idea of 7.5 t on a car licence no questions asked rather than someone taking out a loaded 32 t tipper having passed on a 12 tonner.
Carryfast:
But like Rog you seemed to be suggesting it’s a ‘level playing field’ in that regard whether pre 1997 or post 1997.
FFS carryfast, what do you want pal?
Do you want the DVLA to allow people they KNOW that are not fit to drive a large vehicle, and be somewhat liable?
Or do you want EVERY driver in the country to take a medical at age 45? (That’s going to be popular…)
You really need to get out and see the real world mate!
Evil8Beezle:
FFS carryfast, what do you want pal?
Do you want the DVLA to allow people they KNOW that are not fit to drive a large vehicle, and be somewhat liable?
Or do you want EVERY driver in the country to take a medical at age 45? (That’s going to be popular…)You really need to get out and see the real world mate!
No just a world in which the LGV medical regime only applies to LGV’s not 7.5 tonners will do.
I think I understand what carryfast is saying. How can 7.5t be under medical rules when old people (like me) didn’t need a medical to get that entitlement. Which would seem a logical question. But am I right in thinking that ‘LGV’ got a re-jig with the change in the names,ie class 3 went in the bin (7.5t) and we went Cat C1,C and C+E etc and anything now over 3.5t is ‘LGV’?
well that put the fox in with the chickens, my only question was, I think, had anyone reapplied for their lgv back after surrendering it thinking their illness or perhaps retirement was the last they would want it only to change their mind and apply with a new medical and get it back, I was not looking for him to be able to drive when ill or with defective sight, he was just by chance seen by a doctor that had corrected his eyesight problem in the past and suggested surgery might help with his sight defect. his diabetes had always been under control but the eye thing is sometimes a by product like the blood circulation to the feet. but it is good to hear your thoughts on these matters,
Nobby_Clarke:
I think I understand what carryfast is saying. How can 7.5t be under medical rules when old people (like me) didn’t need a medical to get that entitlement. Which would seem a logical question. But am I right in thinking that ‘LGV’ got a re-jig with the change in the names,ie class 3 went in the bin (7.5t) and we went Cat C1,C and C+E etc and anything now over 3.5t is ‘LGV’?
Logically if they were going to apply car licence grandfather rights to pre 1997 licences at least they’d also have been expected to have carried over the same car licence not LGV medical conditions.IE to a pre 1997 licence holder 7.5 t entitlement never was and still isn’t ( shouldn’t be ) LGV. 
On that note there’s not much point in carrying over the 7.5 t licence entitlement if someone then lost it on LGV licence medical grounds that they wouldn’t have done before.
A medical can be implemented on any category of licence weather it was required before or not.
nick2008:
A medical can be implemented on any category of licence weather it was required before or not.
The difference in this case being that the conditions for satisfying LGV medical standards are higher than for a car licence.Pre 1997 obviously car licence meaning up to 7.5t not 3.5t.
Carryfast:
nick2008:
A medical can be implemented on any category of licence weather it was required before or not.The difference in this case being that the conditions for satisfying LGV medical standards are higher than for a car licence.Pre 1997 obviously car licence meaning up to 7.5t not 3.5t.
Makes no difference of what or when and at the time the regulations of having or not having a medical. Things change as do requirements.
hotel magnum:
good evening a friend of mine surrendered his lorry license c+e due to eyesight trouble through diabetes, he has now had corrective surgery and all is fine with the eyes, he has had his motor cycle, car and trailer entitlement returned up to 3.5 tonne, he enquired about his 7.5 ton entitlement but was told as this is now classed as an lgv and he had surrendered it that’s why its not on his new licence. But he could have a medical and request his full c+e entitlement back. he only wanted his 7.5 in case of wanting to rent a removal truck when he downsizes, has anyone come across this before and what did they do ?
did he not take a photo copy of said licence? 