Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London did not renew his license and did not tell him of the reasons why. We have found fault with the Authority’s actions. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Authority has offered to apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) failed to renew his private hire vehicle (PHV) license and delayed in advising him it was unable to do so.
2. Mr X says this impacted him financially and caused him stress and anxiety.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. Paragraph five (below) applies to this complaint. I have exercised discretion to investigate Mr X’s complaint back to 2021 as his renewal invitation was sent out at this time, delays occurred following this and it is reasonable for me to consider this period in my investigation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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.
7. 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

8. I have considered all the information Mr X provided and discussed this complaint with him. I have also asked TfL questions and requested information, and in turn have considered its response.
9. Mr X and TfL had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

TfL procedure

10. TfL issues renewal packs four months in advance of expiry for existing PHV license holders.
11. As part of the renewal process, an enhanced criminal record check has to be completed with the disclosure and barring service (DBS).
12. An application to renew after the PHV license has expired will be treated as a renewal for up to three months after the expiry date. After this grace period, a driver wishing to renew will be treated as a new applicant which is a different process.

What happened

13. Mr X had a PHV license issued by TfL. His old license was due to expire at the beginning of August 2021.
14. TfL wrote to Mr X at the beginning of April 2021 inviting him to renew his license.
15. By the beginning of June 2021, Mr X had not submitted his renewal application. TfL again wrote to Mr X to remind him that he needed to renew his license. It advised to apply at least six weeks before the expiry date.
16. At the beginning of August 2021, TfL again wrote to Mr X. It advised him his license had now expired.
17. Mr X emailed TfL at the beginning of November 2021 just before the end of the three-month grace period. He advised he was having difficulty reapplying online using TfL’s website. He said the renewal button would not work on the webpage.
18. Evidence shows that a few days later, TfL twice attempted to contact Mr X. It received no response and so left a voicemail. This was four days before the three-month grace period ended.
19. In mid and late-November 2021 Mr X again emailed TfL to ask how he could complete his online application.
20. At the beginning of December 2021 and now after the end of the three-month grace period, TfL again tried to contact Mr X. It left him a voicemail after two unsuccessful calls.
21. Mr X submitted a renewal application online in mid-December 2021.
22. Mr X next contacted TfL in mid-April 2022 to ask for an update about the status of his application.
23. By the end of April 2022, TfL emailed Mr X to advise his December renewal had been out of time for the grace period and would not be accepted.
24. Mr X then complained to TfL at the beginning of May 2022. He was unhappy with TfL’s response and the fact its website had not been working properly when he initially tried to renew his license the previous November.
25. TfL acknowledged receipt of the letter. It said the correct department would be in touch soon.
26. Mr X again contacted TfL in mid-November 2022 when he had still not heard from it after his complaint in May. TfL reviewed actions on the case so far and decided to process Mr X’s application as a renewal.
27. Further correspondence passed between Mr X and TfL from November 2022 to February 2023. Mr X submitted documentation but it was not of the correct standard. In particular, there were issues with the level of DBS certificate he had applied for. Mr X had applied for the standard level check when TfL required an enhanced level check.
28. At the beginning of March 2023, TfL wrote to advise it had re-instated the renewal process in recognition of the issues Mr X had faced while trying to renew his license. It invited him to complain to the Ombudsman again after he had originally complained to us in December 2022, if he was still unhappy.
29. TfL has confirmed it renewed Mr X’s PHV license in mid-May 2023, shortly after it received the outstanding enhanced DBS information.

Analysis

License renewal

30. TfL’s initial renewal invitation was clear and easy to understand. It advised Mr X he should submit his application as soon as possible to avoid any delays. It was careful to highlight delays may happen whilst waiting for DBS checks to be completed.
31. The renewal paperwork also highlighted that an enhanced DBS check was needed.
32. After TfL wrote to Mr X in April 2021, he had seven months (including the grace period) during which he could have applied to renew his license. It was open to him to submit his renewal at any point during this time. The timeline for the grace period and when it will end, is clearly set out on TfL’s website.
33. TfL encourage people to apply online. When Mr X did try to submit his renewal, seven days before the end of the grace period, TfL’s website was not working properly. Mr X’s email to TfL made it clear he was having difficulty with the website. Evidence shows that TfL left a voicemail for Mr X a few days later and still within the grace period.
34. Mr X then emailed TfL again a week after the end of the grace period. Evidence again shows TfL called him. Mr X complains that TfL would say they had tried to call him but that no contact would have been made. On the balance of probabilities and based on the evidence I have seen, I am satisfied that TfL contacted Mr X and were unsuccessful in getting through to him.
35. TfL has confirmed the website malfunction took place. This is fault. There is, however, no ongoing injustice to Mr X as the issue was subsequently fixed.
36. When Mr X then submitted an application in mid-December 2021, he never received any form of contact from TfL. Instead, he had to chase it for an update, as after a full four months he had not heard from it. When he did then receive an update, TfL advised him that he had been too late to apply for a renewal, was out of time and refunded his money.
37. TfL highlights the fact Mr X did not contact it until almost at the end of the grace period. TfL knew of the website malfunction and had written confirmation from Mr X within the grace period that he had tried to apply for his renewal but had not been able to click the renewal button. I am satisfied TfL should have considered exercising discretion to treat his application to renew more favourably at this point. There is no evidence to suggest TfL did this. The issue had clearly been TfL’s not that of Mr X. This is fault. It caused Mr X avoidable frustration. TfL has already made a recommendation (detailed below) to remedy this injustice.
38. As part of my enquiries, I asked TfL to explain the lack of correspondence between December 2021 and April 2022 when Mr X had chased it. TfL said it was due to the volume of applications and renewals it was receiving after the pandemic. It also referred me to a previous Ombudsman decision as to how it had resolved the issues.
39. TfL invites applicants to renew four months before expiry. It was over four months before Mr X chased TfL after he had submitted his late renewal because TfL’s website was not working correctly, before it then rejected his application. It had not communicated with him during this interim period at all. In its response to a previous Ombudsman complaint, TfL said it was taking longer to process new applications (not renewals) as it had been prioritising “maintaining periods of continuous licensing for existing licensees”. This stance is at odds to Mr X’s experiences.
40. I am satisfied, that in the circumstances of this complaint, this lack of correspondence was unacceptable. This is fault. It caused Mr X avoidable frustration and confusion. TfL has already made a recommendation (detailed below) to remedy this injustice.
41. When Mr X then complained to TfL about the ongoing situation, it said his complaint had been forwarded to the relevant department and someone would be in touch. This never happened. TfL says this was due to an administrative error, the escalation never occurred and the complaint was closed. It was only when Mr X again chased TfL for a response in November 2022 that the matter moved forwards. This is fault. It caused Mr X avoidable frustration. TfL has already made a recommendation (detailed below) to remedy this injustice.
42. When Mr X made contact in November, TfL then decided to view Mr X’s application as a renewal and began processing it as such.
43. Mr X’s application was then delayed as the incorrect level of DBS check was applied for – standard rather than enhanced. Mr X complains this was because TfL did not set its systems for the correct level of DBS check for him to apply for. I have reviewed the evidence TfL has provided as to how the DBS check level is set. I am unable to come to a decision as to how and why Mr X applied for the wrong level of DBS check. I am therefore unable to conclude that TfL has acted with fault here.
44. Mr X applied for an enhanced DBS check which subsequently arrived in mid-May 2023 and his license was then renewed. I am satisfied that there was no undue delay or fault on TfL’s part once it had received the correct enhanced DBS check.

TfL’s suggested remedy

45. When responding to my enquiries, TfL said in recognition of its ‘oversights’, it would offer to apologise to Mr X and proposed to refund him £310 which is the cost of the PHV license renewal fee.
46. I consider this to be an appropriate remedy.  In reaching this view, I have taken into consideration Mr X’s actions and while he did follow up intermittently, I have not seen any evidence to suggest he was continually and regularly pursuing the issue such that the injustice caused to him would be greater.

Back to top

Agreed action

47. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, TfL has agreed to take the following action, as per its suggested remedy, within four weeks from the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Mr X; and
• make a payment to him of £310 to reflect the avoidable delay and miscommunication he experienced.
48. TfL should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman