HAD response to this web page. 1 , 2 , 3 .

Instead of threatening legal action, HAD should make some comment on the apparently enormous discrepancy between 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 and 6 , 7 .

Annabelle Waterfield, the head of HAD, should have replied to my messages pointing out the total contradiction between my marks in the test and the resulting report. She should not take legal action before explaining away this obvious contradiction.

Hertfordshire Action on Disability send a bogus report to the DVLA

Hertfordshire Action on Disability (HAD) has a contract with the DVLA to examine drivers for their driving test. In my case, the two and a half hour test was in two parts. First, a “Conceptual and Cognitive Assessment” in the office, and then “Driving Assessment”. In my case, the first test was to look for brain damage in view of my very serious medical condition 18 months before.

The markings for my test are at 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 and 5 . This was followed by the totally inappropriate, misleading report to the DVLA, see 6 and 7 . This report says the following about the “Conceptual and Cognitive Assessment”, in a total of ten words for a test lasting more than one hour, for which HAD received a fee of £90 (for that half of the test);

[Total 10 words]

Speech and Language: Satisfactory

Memory: Satisfactory

Reasoning Ability: Significant Deficit Noted

Concentration/Attention: Significant Deficit Noted

Behaviour: Extremely inappropriate

However, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 and 5 show that I scored extremely high marks in the tests.

In 4 , the examiner failed the test. My total is 86 (=100%), not the 84 written at the bottom.

Although the test was very well designed, there are problems with it. For instance, in the “Card Exercise”, there is little point in a test if the average score is “Full marks” or “one wrong at most”. What was bad was the reporting, which was the worst possible report on a nearly perfect performance.

It is appalling that someone who has suffered so much should now suffer this as well.

A representative of the DVLA said the DVLA only receives the bogus report 6 and 7 , and does not receive the markings 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 and 5

Ivor Catt 3 August 2010

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Slovenly variation of terminology has made it difficult to determine the basis of written reporting. This is the fault of the DVLA. Their form D794 does not make it sufficiently clear that “COGNITIVE AND PERCEPTUAL ASSESSMENT” applies to a test in the office, particularly since it provides such a minute space for reporting on a one hour test (although there is some blank space which could have been used. However, note the rectangle provided in 7 , but missing here in 6 ). Perhaps HAD were expected to use it.). So the DVLA set the scene for the resulting mess. I fell into the trap of thinking that the DVLA would surely not accept a tiny ten word report on a “cognitive section of your driving assessment”, also called “COGNITIVE AND PERCEPTUAL ASSESSMENT” for which hour the testing house (HAD) received £90 of taxpayers’ money, but I was wrong. This error led me previously to say that the report 6 and 7 contained nothing on the in office test 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 and 5 . However, I now realise that the ten word report (copied above) was indeed a report on a test lasting more than one hour, costing £90. Having previously been refused the marking on 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 and 5 , I am only now able to say that the report (on the in office test) is totally contradicted by the marking. Marking and report are extreme, in opposite directions.

In particular, the in office test required Concentration/Attention. I scored nearly full marks, and so could not have shown “Concentration/Attention – Significant Deficit Noted.” In fact my examiners told me that I had scored high marks, which the now available marking sheets prove. When they wrote their report, did they confuse me with someone else? That would be the kindest thing to suggest about them – Mr Sean Lawrence and his supervisor.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Why was I being tested by an organisation involved with the disabled? The false idea that I am disabled permeates the documentation, with the second testing house and the DVLA’s Dr. Hanley making this assertion. My second testing house filled out a form for a disabled driver. Perhaps this partly explains the extraordinary decision of the DVLA’s Dr. Hanley to let me have a second driving test, but not allowing me to practice driving or even have driving lessons before the test. If that were applied to young people – that they can take a driving test but must not practice beforehand or have any lessons, the roads would be gradually cleared of cars.

Ivor Catt 5 August 2010

Apart from the false idea that I am disabled, another error has got into the documentation on my case. Documents say my age is 84. In fact it is 74.

- Ivor Catt 14 August 2010

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@