Summary: Mr F complained about poor communication and delay in dealing with his application for a private hire vehicle driver’s license. We found the authority took too long to offer Mr F a topographical assessment and failed to provide sufficient updates on the progress of his application. This caused distress. The authority has agreed apologise, make a payment and review how it updates applicants.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains about poor communication and delay in dealing with his application for a private hire vehicle driver’s license, in considering his request for reasonable adjustments for the topographical assessment and in dealing with his complaint.
2. Mr F says the delays caused significant distress, worsening his depression, anxiety and insomnia.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mr F about his complaint and considered the information he sent and the Authority’s response to my enquiries.
6. Mr F and the Authority had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. The power to grant a Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) drivers licence is contained within section 13 of the Private Hire Vehicles Act 1998 (as amended). The local authority shall grant a licence to an applicant if satisfied they:
• are at least 21 years of age;
• have held a driving licence (from Great Britain, Northern Ireland, European Union or European Economic Area) for at least three years;
• are a fit and proper person to hold a licence;
• are entitled to work as a PHV driver in the UK;
• have appropriate knowledge of London and general topographical skills;
• meet any additional requirements prescribed by the Authority; and
8. There is no statutory time frame for processing applications.

TfL’s procedures

9. On receiving a new application, Transport for London (TfL) completes an initial assessment. This means carrying out early checks, for example, ensuring the applicant submitted the required documents and has undertaken an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check.
10. Once the applicant has passed the initial assessment, TfL invites them to apply for a topographical skills assessment and a safety, equality and regulatory understanding assessment. The time taken to complete the assessments depends on several reasons, for example, how quickly the applicant books the assessment, the availability of assessment dates and whether the applicant passes the test.
11. Applicants may ask for reasonable adjustments to be made at the assessment if they have a disability or condition. TfL will ask the applicant to detail the adjustment they would like to request and provide supporting evidence to confirm the adjustment in required. This would usually be an outline of the condition and documented evidence from a relevant professional.
12. After the applicant has completed the assessment, TfL places their application in a queue for final review. TfL must be satisfied the applicant is ‘fit and proper’ to drive a taxi before it grants the licence.
13. TfL processes cases in date received order and considers applications on a case-by-case basis.
14. There are several processes outside TfL’s control, for example DBS and medical checks.
15. TfL’s website does not state how long an application is expected to take. TfL says at no point throughout the process is it able to provide a date on which a final decision will be made. It is currently developing a new licensing system which will allow applicants to see the progress of their application.

Reasonable Adjustments

16. The Equality Act 2010 places a requirement on public bodies to anticipate and prevent discrimination against people with disabilities. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
17. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
18. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

What happened

19. Mr F applied for a PHV driver’s licence in December 2022. TfL wrote to him on 16 December confirming it had completed its initial assessment. It gave an email address to contact if he required reasonable adjustments for the topographical assessment.
20. Mr F says he emailed on 18 December 2022 about this, but this email is not in TfL’s case records.
21. TfL sent Mr F a date for the assessment on 9 January 2023. Mr F emailed saying he had not heard about the adjustments he requested. In addition, he could not make the date that was being offered.
22. Mr F chased on 12 January as he had not had a response. It is unclear if TFL had received the 9 January email.
23. TfL cancelled the planned assessment and on 1 February it wrote to Mr F asking for evidence to support his request for adjustments. The letter said Mr F should respond within 28 days.
24. On 10 April, Mr F emailed TfL. He said he had sent his medical evidence “weeks ago” but had not heard anything. TfL asked him to re-send the evidence on 13 April. Mr F says he did so on the same day, but this is not in TfL’s records.
25. Mr F again chased. TfL replied on 24 April to say it did not have the information. Mr F re-sent it on the same day. It was a letter from a consultant psychologist dated 13 February.
26. Mr F complained that he had not been contacted and was still waiting to hear about the topographical assessment.
27. TfL replied to the complaint on 28 April. It said it needed to make checks and the time this took could vary so it was unable to specify a timeframe for an outcome of his application. TfL noted it had received a substantial number of new applications following the COVID-19 pandemic and was working through a significant backlog. Mr F’s application had been passed to the driver assessment team which would contact Mr F to book the assessment. The response did not state whether there was a next stage in the complaints process or signpost Mr F to the Ombudsman.
28. TfL next contacted Mr F on 5 June. It acknowledged his request for adjustments for the topographical assessment. It said it was experiencing delays and had limited capacity. As a result, waiting times for the assessment had increased. The officer had asked for Mr F’s application to be processed as soon as possible.
29. Mr F came to the Ombudsman. We asked him to clarify if he had received a final complaint response from TfL. Mr F asked TfL and continued to chase from then until 28 July. Each time he emailed TfL he would receive an acknowledgment but there was no detail about what was happening with his application or reference to whether a final complaint response had been issued.
30. TfL wrote to Mr F on 14 August with a date for a topographical assessment. It said he could have 25% extra time. Mr F passed the assessment and TfL wrote to him on 26 September saying it would need to make further medical investigations. It did not say what, inf any, information Mr F shod provide.
31. TfL issued another complaint response on 27 September. It said it required some information from Mr F.
32. Mr F sent a form from his GP and optician on 27 October. TfL wrote on 1 November asking for information from the optician, but it has accepted this had already been received. Mr F continued to chase. The licence was issued on 24 November.

My findings

33. Mr F says he asked for reasonable adjustments on 18 December 2022 and sent the medical evidence at some point in February 2023 or early March 2023. But TfL’s case records do not show this correspondence. On the evidence I have seen, TfL received the medical evidence on 24 April 2023. There was therefore no delay by TfL from 6 December 2022 to 24 April 2023.
34. Once it had received the evidence supporting Mr F’s request for adjustments, TfL took until 14 August to process this and offer a date for an assessment. That is 16 weeks. TfL’s policies do not include any timescales and there is no statutory time frame for processing applications. But my view is that 16 weeks to consider whether to make reasonable adjustments is too long and this delay was fault. This has caused distress to Mr F.
35. TfL took from 7 September to 24 November to complete its checks and issue a licence. I do not find delay here as this is a proportionate timeframe for those checks.
36. I consider that the updates provided to Mr F whilst he was waiting (from June to November 2023) were insufficient.
37. Our principles of good administrative practice say delays should be explained and that reasonable adjustments should be made. In response to a previous complaint on the same issue, TfL told us it advises customers of processing times when asked, but it has not done so in this case. Its replies to Mr F contain no details. They could have said, for example, what the current average wait times were, where he was in the queue, what stage his application was at, or when it would update him next.
38. In addition, whilst Mr F did not ask for any reasonable adjustments in relation to his application (other than for the assessment), they are an anticipatory duty. TfL was aware Mr F had requested adjustments for the assessment and that he had sent in medical evidence. It could have been more sensitive to his needs and considered whether it should make an exception in his case to provide clearer information about dates.
39. Overall, therefore, there was fault in TfL’s communications with Mr F which has caused him distress.
40. There was no fault in the timing of TfL’s initial response to Mr Fs complaint in April 2023, but the letter did not signpost him to the Ombudsman or say if there was a second complaint stage. My understanding is TfL has a single stage complaint procedure, but this omission caused time and trouble to Mr F as when he approached us it was unclear if he had completed TfL’s complaint procedure. Mr F then asked for a further complaint response which was not issued for three months, compounding his distress about delays.
41. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice, we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might. Our guidance says to remedy time, trouble and distress caused by fault, a moderate symbolic payment may be appropriate.
42. Mr F says he has suffered loss of earnings as a consequence of the delay. We do not normally recommend remedies that reimburse loss of earnings. This is because we cannot usually, on balance, establish a clear and causal link between the fault and the claimed injustice of lost earnings. There are frequently other factors, personal circumstances and choices involved. Such payments are therefore best resolved by the courts.
43. In response to my enquiries, TfL said it was developing a new system which would enable PHV driver’s licence applicants to see the progress of their applications. It had added information to its website and completed upskilling its customer support staff. I welcome this but I recommend TfL review the information it currently provides to applicants about the progress of their applications.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. Within a month of my final decision, the Authority has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr F for its failure to provide sufficient updates on the progress of her application and for the 16 week wait for the topographical assessment.
• Pay Mr F £300 to recognise the time and trouble, frustration and distress its faults caused.
45. Within three months of my final decision, the Authority will:
• Consider how it can better update applicants when they chase progress of their application.
46. The Authority should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

47. There was fault. The actions TfL has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman