In defence of the ATC unit involved, I doubt that they would have had any clue as to the limitations of the type of aircraft involved in this incident or the limitations of the pilot due to the type of licence he holds.
I doubt that Vince declared that he was flying a microlight, as there was no need to, and I suspect that Vince is might be of those who prefers not to admit to his aircraft being a microlight, anyway. He was apparently transponder equipped (relatively unusual for a microlight) and flying at a cruise speed and height commensurate with that of many other GA types. There would have been few outward clues to the controller of the class of aircraft they were dealing with.
It would be quite reasonable for the controller to assume that the pilot should know the limitations of his aircraft and licence type and just do his/her best to maintain safety in that bit of airspace, once it was clear that there was a potential problem. This seems to be just what was done, albeit with some inconvenience to other users.
I very much doubt that any legal action will be taken, as the outcome wasn't too serious, even though it had the potential to be. The rescue seems to have been fairly straightforward, damage to third party property seems modest and proving whatever the Scottish equivalent is of "reckless endangerment" would be fairly difficult (and expensive). My guess is that the AAIB report will be brief and inconclusive, Vince will whitewash the media and the true underlying reasons for this accident will be submerged beneath a layer of hype, leading to the loss of a valuable set of lessons learned.
VP