Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London took too long to renew his private hire licence and so he lost income as he was unable to work. Transport for London was at fault as it delayed assessing Mr X’s application, so he was unable to work for four weeks. It has agreed to make a payment to Mr X to reflect his lost earnings.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained Transport for London (TfL) took too long to renew his private hire licence. As a result, he was unable to work for four weeks which had a significant financial impact upon his earnings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We cannot question whether a body in jurisdiction’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
4. If we are satisfied with TfL’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 have considered the information supplied by Mr X and have spoken with him on the telephone. I have considered TfL’s response to my enquiries.
6. I gave Mr X and TfL the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered their comments before I reached this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. At the end of April 2018 Mr X applied on-line to renew his private hire licence which was due to expire in mid-August 2018. Mr X says the system only allowed him to upload one page of his medical declaration. TfL wrote to Mr X on 3 May 2018 as it had not received his medical declaration and requested that he submit this. TfL received this on 6 June 2018.
8. TfL reviewed Mr X’s application on 7 August 2018 and wrote to Mr X to advise it had passed his application to its Occupational Health Team for review. This was because it contained issues that had not been raised in his previous medical form in 2015. Throughout August, Mr X frequently called TfL to chase progress with his application.
9. Mr X’s private hire licence expired in mid-August 2018. Mr X chased TfL for progress with the application. It advised it was being considered by the Occupational Health Team. Mr X provided TfL with a letter from his GP confirming there was no risk with Mr X driving.
10. The Occupational Health Team telephoned Mr X’s GP at the end of August but were not able to speak with them.
11. Mr X emailed TfL in early September to complain about the delay. He set out he was unable to work and estimated he had lost around £5000 in earnings
12. The Occupational Health Team spoke to Mr X’s GP in mid-September 2018 and issued a licence that day.
13. Mr X emailed TfL on 8 October 2018 as he had not received a response to his email of early September 2018 or any comment on his loss of earnings. TfL responded at the end of November 2018. It set out that all applications are considered on a case by case basis. Depending on the information provided the time taken can vary between applicants which is why it was unable to specify a timeframe for an outcome. It confirmed the licence was issued in September 2018.
14. Mr X emailed TfL a letter in December 2018 to complain about the delay in processing his application. Mr X did not receive a response and wrote again in early March 2019. As he did not receive a response, he complained to the Ombudsman who contacted TfL and asked it to respond.
15. TfL responded in May 2019. It apologised for not replying to Mr X’s letter from December 2018. It set out that Mr X had not provided a medical declaration when he first submitted his application. Due to some new information not disclosed in a previous application it referred his application to its Occupational Health Team. It acknowledged it was experiencing high volumes of applications at the time “and this regrettably appears to have contributed to the delay you have experienced”. It stated it was sorry he was not kept informed of the progress of the application and the inconvenience this caused. It asked Mr X to provide evidence of loss of earnings up to the point the licence was issued.
16. Mr X provided TfL with bank statements which showed the income he received from various sources over the previous months plus evidence of bookings he was unable to accept due to the delay in issuing his licence. Mr X told TfL he had lost out on around £9500.
17. TfL sent Mr X a final response in July 2019. It noted Mr X had not initially provided his medical declaration which delayed the initial assessment. In view of the information this contained regarding his medical history it referred the case to its medical advisors. It considered it was not reasonable to expect information received to be reviewed immediately on receipt, particularly when input was required from medical experts. For these reasons it did not feel recompense of the sum requested by Mr X was justified. As a goodwill gesture it offered Mr X £1000 in recognition of any inconvenience caused by its failure to keep him informed of the progress of his application. It also apologised for the inconvenience this caused.
18. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.

Findings

There is no statutory timeframe for processing private hire licences. Each licence application must be given proper consideration to ensure the applicant is of good character and medically fit. TfL does not require applications to be made a certain time before the current license expires. However, we would expect, as a matter of good administrative practice, that licences are processed within a timely manner.

19. As Mr X did not initially submit a full medical declaration, TfL did not have all Mr X’s information until early June 2018. As his license was due to expire in mid-August, this was still in good time for TfL to process the application, even allowing for the need to consult with his GP. However, there is no evidence TfL took any action to reassess Mr X’s application until 7 August, over two months since it received his medical declaration. That delay is fault.
20. TfL decided it needed to refer the medical declaration to its Occupational Health Team for consideration. In addition, it was the Occupational Health Team’s view that it needed to speak to Mr X’s GP. It took just over a month from the referral to the Occupational Health Team until the licence was issued. TfL has a responsibility to ensure drivers are medically fit and so it was for TfL to decide what medical information it needed. There was no fault in the way TfL considered the application and sought further information. However, had TfL reassessed Mr X’s application sooner, it would have referred it to the Occupational Health Team sooner. On the balance of probabilities, I consider it is likely Mr X’s licence would have therefore been issued sooner, before it ran out in mid-August 2018. This is shown by its ability to reissue the license the same day as it eventually spoke to the GP.
21. TfL offered Mr X £1000 in recognition of any inconvenience caused by its failure to keep him informed of the progress of his application. However, Mr X lost out on more than this as he was unable to work for four weeks as a direct consequence of TfL’s avoidable delay processing his application. Mr X provided information to TfL regarding income he received during previous months and about lost bookings.
22. I cannot know how much Mr X would have earned but for TfL’s fault and the information he provided did not take into account Mr X’s expenditure and outgoings, such as tax or national insurance, petrol and other associated motoring costs. He would not have incurred some of the costs during the period he was unable to work. It is therefore not an accurate reflection of the net earnings Mr X missed out on.
23. TfL should offer Mr X a financial remedy equivalent to its assessment of his probable loss of net earnings for four weeks.

Agreed action

24. I recommended TfL pay Mr X an amount to reflect its assessment of his lost net earnings for four weeks to remedy the financial loss Mr X was put to by not being able to work for one month. TfL has offered to pay Mr X £4215.54. This is based on the average weekly amount earned by Mr X calculated from information Mr X previously provided to it, without any deductions. I am satisfied this is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation. There was fault leading to injustice which TfL has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman