Thank you for this. I was mistakenly under the impression that it was not possible to raise these concerns with DVLA anonymously.

Do you know what the process that follows this looks like? Are they just asked to self-certify again? Are they told that someone has reported them (even if they aren't told who it was)?

From memory, and from the one time I did it about three years ago: they get a letter saying that the DVLA has reason to believe that they are unfit to drive and that they must pass a medical examination in order to keep their licence. I don't believe the letter says that they've been reported.

And to be clear: when I said "anonymously" I meant from the pov of the person being reported. The DVLA requires some basic details of the person making the report, but they're definitely not disclosed to the subject.

If "anonymously" is your make or break criteria then that should be a red flag to reconsider your actions because it almost certainly means those around you (edit: a group distinct from the target of such actions) would not agree with you. And if you think everyone around would agree with you, then you'll probably do better leveraging them instead of the government. Generally, not just on this issue.

Now, I get that some social issues can be touchy in this regard but we're not talking about gay dating in Saudi Arabia here, we're talking about something pretty non-controversial. Everyone's body declines as they get old. Among seniors stopping driving at some point is just a part of the aging process.

I disagree. This case is very controversial, at least from the point of view of the parent.

Being reported may be seen as betrayal by the parent, even if it is objectively justified. That could also be the reason why „everyone around“ failed to act, even if they agree.

Being anonymous certainly helps.

>Being reported may be seen as betrayal by the parent,

It kind of is no matter how you slice it. You're prioritizing other interests above theirs specifically to their detriment and then saying "it's justified because X". No value for X no matter how legitimate is gonna change the fundametal reality.

>even if it is objectively justified. That could also be the reason why „everyone around“ failed to act,

If everyone around thinks it's justified then they'll have no problem supporting the guy who does want to act. Buuuut, and this is a big bug. "Will support someone narcing on someone to cause the state to take action" is a way higher bar "will support a DIY solution". Showing up to or organizing your friend's intervention is a way lower bar than throwing them under the bus to the cops. What we're discussing here is basically the "lite" version of the latter.

> You're prioritizing other interests above theirs specifically to their detriment

They might be saving the life of the reported person.

Like I said, that's a justification not a fundamental change of the situation.

What happens after this? Even if they lose their license, what happens to their vehicles? I ask in the context that many people drive without licenses.

Thankfully, the government doesn't steal a car away from a person who is unfit to drive cars yet.

About 10 years ago I quietly parked my Aunt's car in her garage so the driver's side door was about 6 inches away from the garage wall and got out of the passenger door. Although she insisted she was cognitively okay to drive, turned out she wasn't cognitively okay to work out how to get back into her car.

+1. My brother and I had to do this for my Dad. We felt awful but it was necessary.

Registration of car is MW71DHM white Tesla. This lady is driving with her arm in a cast and a dog in the backseat unrestrained Number 23 OX29BL postcode