Summary: Mr B says Transport for London delayed renewing his taxi licence before it expired despite the fact it had granted previous licences based on the same documentation. TfL delayed considering Mr B’s representations after it raised concerns about his DBS check. An apology and payment to Mr B is satisfactory.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained the Authority (TfL) delayed renewing his taxi licence before it expired due to issues with his name on the documentation he provided despite the fact:
• he had received previous licences based on the same documentation; and
• TfL subsequently issued a new licence without him submitting any new documentation.
2. Mr B says TfL’s actions means he could not work for 32 days.

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 an injustice, 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the TfL and considered the comments and documents the TfL provided.
6. Mr B and the organisation 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

TfL’s Taxi and PHP driver policy (the policy)

7. This says before submitting an application all applicants must apply for an enhanced disclosure and barring service (DBS) check. It says any discrepancies in the name or address on the DBS certificate with the name or address on the licence application may result in the DBS check not being accepted. In those circumstances the applicant is required to obtain a further enhanced DBS check.
8. Drivers can apply to renew their licence up to four months before it expires. While every effort will be made to issue a new licence before the expiry of the existing licence there can be no guarantee of this if drivers do not allow sufficient time for all the necessary checks and processes to be completed.

What happened

9. Mr B holds a taxi licence which was due to expire on 16 June 2023.
10. On 8 February 2023 TfL sent Mr B a renewal reminder. That renewal reminder recommended Mr B put in his completed application as soon as he could to avoid any delays, including any delay while criminal record checks took place. The letter told Mr B if he did not submit his renewal application promptly his licence could expire and TfL would not be responsible for any losses. The letter also made clear it was important Mr B apply for an enhanced criminal record check via TfL’s authorised service provider immediately to prevent any delays as the decision on the renewal application could not be made until the check was complete.
11. Mr B began the renewal application process on 30 March but did not complete it. TfL therefore wrote to him again on 12 April. In that letter TfL said Mr B needed to provide his completed application at least six weeks before the current licence expired or that could affect his entitlement to continue working. The letter said failure to provide any of the mandatory information or documentation required with the application would result in the application being incomplete. The letter made clear that included ensuring Mr B had applied for a criminal record check with DBS.
12. Mr B put in his application and documentation to support it on 24 April. That did not include the DBS certificate although Mr B had applied for one. TfL told Mr B it would process the application when it received the DBS result.
13. Mr B chased TfL on 28 May. TfL told Mr B it was still waiting for the DBS outcome.
14. Mr B received his DBS outcome on 9 June and emailed TfL. TfL responded on 12 June to advise Mr B’s email had not included any attachments. TfL said though it had received the DBS result and would process his application.
15. On 16 June TfL asked Mr B complete a new DBS application as Mr B’s name was listed differently on different documents. Mr B queried that and pointed out the documents he had provided were the same as the documents he provided for his previous, granted, licence applications. Mr B asked TfL to provide him with a temporary licence while the issue was resolved.
16. Mr B chased TfL on 21 June. TfL referred Mr B back to its previous correspondence.
17. On 22 June Mr B contacted TfL again to raise concerns about why he had not received a licence when he had received one based on the same documentation in previous years. Mr B followed that up with a copy of his current and previous passports on 23 June. TfL again told Mr B he needed to submit a new DBS.
18. Following further representations TfL agreed to refer the case to a team leader.
19. On 30 June Mr B told TfL he had tried to complete a further DBS application but it had been rejected. Mr B asked for a temporary licence. Mr B reiterated that request on 4 July after receiving a standard letter from TfL suggesting it was waiting for an outstanding DBS check.
20. On 13 July TfL exercised its discretion to accept the DBS certificate and issued a new licence.
21. Following a complaint TfL accepted it could have escalated the matter sooner and refunded the licence fee of £186 as a gesture of goodwill. TfL urged Mr B to submit future renewal applications and supporting documents as soon as the renewal documents were received to allow time for any issues to be resolved.

Analysis

22. Mr B says TfL delayed renewing his taxi licence before it expired. Mr B says the documentation he provided in support of his application is the same documentation provided with his previous applications which TfL had granted a licence on. Mr B therefore says there was no reason for TfL not to issue a new licence before his previous licence expired. Mr B also says TfL later issued a new licence without receiving any further evidence from him. Mr B says due to TfL’s delay he did not have a licence for 32 days which meant he lost out on earnings.
23. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Mr B’s licence was due to expire on 16 June 2023. I am satisfied TfL wrote to Mr B in February and April 2023 to prompt him to complete the application process. I am satisfied TfL’s letter in February 2023 recommended Mr B put in his application as soon as possible to avoid delays. That letter also made clear if Mr B did not put in his renewal application promptly his licence could expire and TfL would not be responsible for any of his losses. The letter recommended Mr B put in his application for an enhanced criminal record check via TfL’s DBS service provider immediately to prevent any delays.
24. Although Mr B put in his application for renewal on 24 April, which was well in advance of the existing licensing expiring, the evidence I have seen suggests TfL only received the DBS check on or around 12 June 2023. That was less than a week before Mr B’s licence was due to expire. I consider it likely, on the balance of probability, if Mr B had completed the DBS check when he was advised to do so in February 2023 the issues with the names on the various documents could have been resolved well before his licence expired. In those circumstances I consider it likely the delay putting in the DBS check contributed to Mr B’s injustice.
25. I recognise Mr B’s frustration with being asked to complete a further DBS check when it is clear he has received previous licences based on the same documentation. However, I cannot criticise TfL for asking him to do that given it is in accordance with its policy.
26. I am concerned though that TfL missed numerous opportunities to consider whether to grant Mr B a licence based on the documentary evidence he provided given the number of times Mr B contacted TfL in June and July 2023. In all those contacts Mr B pointed out the documentation he had provided was the same as the documentation he put in for previous licence applications and he had received a licence each time without any difficulty. I would have expected TfL to deal with those representations, and his request for a temporary license before 13 July. Despite Mr B repeating that information on many occasions TfL did not grant the licence until 13 July 2023. That delay is fault.
27. I consider it likely, if TfL had properly considered the case in June 2023, it would have issued a new licence to Mr B earlier than 13 July. TfL accepts it delayed considering whether to grant a new licence based on the information it had. TfL also accepts if it had not delayed Mr B would likely have received a new licence before 13 July 2023.
28. In those circumstances I understand why Mr B would believe delays by TfL are responsible for him missing out on earnings in June and July 2023. However, I cannot ignore the fact TfL recommended Mr B put in his application in February 2023 and again in April 2023. Nor can I ignore the fact TfL told Mr B in February 2023 he should apply for his DBS check immediately to prevent any delays and warned him it would not be responsible for any losses. Had Mr B followed that advice he would likely have received a new licence before the old licence expired as the DBS issues could have been resolved.
29. So, although I consider TfL was at fault here for the delay referred to earlier in this statement Mr B’s failure to act on TfL’s advice about the DBS check contributed to the fact he did not have a licence for part of June and July 2023. In those circumstances I cannot recommend TfL cover the lost income between 16 June and 13 July 2023. That is because I cannot say only fault by TfL meant Mr B lost out on earnings. I consider though Mr B has suffered an injustice because, even without the delays on his side, if TfL had dealt with the case properly when Mr B made representations on 16 July 2023 it may have issued him with a new licence earlier.
30. I welcome TfL’s offer to refund the licence fee of £186. I also understand why TfL would consider that an appropriate remedy, taking into account the date Mr B put in his renewal application and the delay in receiving the DBS certificate. However, irrespective of the delays on Mr B’s side TfL had sufficient information to make a decision about whether to exercise its discretion to grant the licence by 16 June and failed to make a decision until 13 July. I do not recommend a financial remedy to reflect the lost income given the delays on Mr B’s side. However, I also do not consider £186 a sufficient remedy. Instead, I consider an appropriate remedy would be for TfL to pay Mr B £300. I am happy for TfL to deduct from that amount the £186 it has already offered, should it have refunded that amount already. TfL has agreed to my recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within one month of my decision TfL should:
• apologise to Mr B for the distress he experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. TfL may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet.
• Pay Mr B £300 (or £114 if TfL has already refunded his application fee).

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman