Summary: The Authority delayed processing Mr X’s private hire driver’s licence application for over two years. It was also at fault in its communications with Mr X. This caused Mr X uncertainty and frustration, put him to time and trouble, and delayed his ability to work in his chosen job. The Authority agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a symbolic payment to him, and take action to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that Transport for London (the Authority) delayed processing his private hire driver’s licence application for over two years. He also complained that the Authority gave contradictory guidance about how he should complete its medical declaration form and delayed or failed to respond to many of his contacts and complaints.
2. Mr X said the delay caused him stress, inconvenience, and financial loss because he was unable to work as a private hire driver. He wants the Authority to pay him compensation for the injustice he has suffered.

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. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Authority as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Authority had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

8. 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
• There is no statutory time frame for processing applications.

The Authority’s procedures

9. On receiving a new application, the Authority 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. The DBS is initiated by the applicant via the Authority’s approved service provider. The Authority also asks for medical information and for a code that allows the applicant to share their driving licence information with the Authority, using the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA)’s online facility.
10. Once the applicant has passed the initial assessment, the Authority invites them to apply for a topographical skills assessment (to assess their ability to read a map and plot the most direct route between two points), a safety, equality and regulatory understanding assessment and, where relevant, an English language requirement. The time taken to complete the assessments depends on several factors, for example, how quickly the applicant books the assessment, the availability of assessment dates and whether the applicant passes the test.
11. After the applicant has completed the assessment, the Authority places their application in a queue for final review. The Authority must be satisfied the applicant is ‘fit and proper’ to drive a taxi before it grants the licence.
12. The Authority processes cases in date received order and considers applications on a case-by-case basis.
13. There are several processes outside the Authority’s control, for example DBS and medical checks.
14. The Authority’s website does not state how long an application is expected to take. The Authority says at no point throughout the process is it able to provide a date on which a final decision will be made.

What happened

2023

15. Mr X applied for a private hire licence on 12 April 2023. He included a completed medical declaration signed by a private GP. If the doctor signing the form is not the applicant’s registered NHS GP (as in this case) they must complete a box explaining how they had accessed the applicant’s full medical records. The doctor wrote that he had obtained printed records from Mr X’s GP surgery “from 23/03/23”.
16. The Authority sent two letters to Mr X on 12 May. The first asked for:
• Confirmation of his immigration status,
• An up-to-date driver’s licence (the address on the licence submitted did not match the address on the application), and
• A further DVLA driver check code (the one he had submitted had expired).
17. The second letter confirmed that Mr X’s DBS check was in progress, requested the same information as in the first letter, and asked him to sign a medical declaration confirming details of his registered GP.
18. The Authority sent these letters to Mr X’s former address, and so he did not receive them. The Authority also sent copies to his correct email address. Mr X told me he did not receive these emails, but he responded on 16 May with the information the Authority had requested.
19. The Authority wrote to Mr X at the correct address on 23 May, confirming it had completed the initial assessment of his application, and that he now needed to complete the assessment tests described at paragraph 10. The letter said that the Authority’s Driver Assessment Bookings Team would contact him by letter and email to confirm the date and time of his assessments. All correspondence after this date was sent to Mr X’s correct postal address and email address.
20. Mr X emailed the Authority on 2 June, asking when the assessment would be. The Authority said his application was still at the checking stage. Mr X chased again on 29 June. The Authority responded on 30 June that the Driver Assessment Bookings Team would be in touch.
21. On 11 July, the Authority wrote to Mr X, saying that it was withdrawing his application because it had told him it was incomplete and he had not responded. When Mr X queried this, the Authority told him to disregard that letter, which had been generated automatically because his application was still in progress. Mr X chased progress by email at least seven times between July and November. Each time, the Authority told him it would send his email to either the management team or the assessment team. The Authority said it could not provide a date for either a response or an assessment.
22. Mr X made a formal stage one complaint to the Authority on 10 November about the lack of progress of his application and poor communication. The Authority did not respond to this complaint. The Authority wrote to Mr X on 14 December, telling him the assessments would take place on 18 January 2024.

2024

23. Mr X did not receive the letter and did not notice the email until 6 February 2024. He contacted the Authority. It responded that it was waiting for the results of the assessments (that he had not taken).
24. On 16 February the Authority wrote to Mr X rearranging the assessments for 29 February. He took these but failed one of the tests. The Authority told him of the result on 11 April and rearranged the test for 20 June. On 12 July, it told him he had passed.
25. Later in July, the Authority wrote to say his application was incomplete, because:
• It needed confirmation of his leave status,
• His enhanced DBS results were outstanding,
• The Authority would carry out an assessment regarding his medical status.
26. Mr X provided confirmation of his leave status again. He sent four chasing emails between July and September.
27. The Authority wrote to Mr X on 23 September. It said it was still waiting for the results of his enhanced DBS check. It said it needed him to submit a new medical declaration signed by his registered NHS GP, who had access to his full UK medical history. It said the private GP who had signed his March 2023 medical declaration did not have access to his medical records before 23 March 2023. It was concerned the medical form may not be an accurate reflection of Mr X’s health. That letter also said “we cannot accept liability for any fee incurred in the supply of further information”.
28. Also in September 2024, the Authority was subject to a cyber security incident. It took action to protect systems and data which meant access to its licensing system was restricted and the time for processing new applications increased.
29. Mr X made a further formal stage one complaint, asking why the Authority had taken 17 months to tell him the medical form had not been correctly completed. He said he would arrange for another medical form to be completed, but he wanted a refund of the fee he had paid in March 2023. He submitted a new medical declaration and his DBS certificate on 15 October. The medical declaration was signed by the private GP who had signed the first medical declaration, not by his registered NHS GP.
30. The Authority responded to Mr X’s formal complaint in late October. It said that the doctor carrying out the medical assessment must sign a medical declaration confirming they have had full access to the applicant’s medical records and have physically examined them. This was because the examining doctor can only assess the applicant’s medical fitness if they have full knowledge of their complete medical history. Mr X sent several chasing emails in November and December. On each occasion, the Authority responded that any delay was caused by the consequences of the cyber security incident.
31. On 13 December, the Authority wrote to Mr X explaining it could not accept the medical form submitted on 15 October. This was because it had not been completed by his registered (NHS) GP with access to his full medical record. Mr X replied the same day in the form of a formal complaint. He complained of delay, contradictory language and a lack of clarity about the completion and submission of the medical declaration form. He asked for confirmation that his submission complied with the Authority’s requirements.
32. The Authority did not respond to this complaint.

2025

33. Mr X chased a response to his complaint on 7 January 2025.
34. On 18 January the Authority wrote to Mr X telling him that as he had not provided the medical information requested in the letter of 13 December, it would consider his application as withdrawn. Mr X replied on 21 January that he couldn’t understand why the Authority was withdrawing his application. He said that he had taken his full medical records to the GP who had completed the medical declaration – twice.
35. The Authority introduced a new licensing system in February 2025. It told me that introducing the new software, coupled with the recovery from the cyber security incident of 2024, had led to licensing delays for some new applicants, including Mr X.
36. Mr X sent chasing emails throughout February and March and escalated his concerns into a further formal complaint on 2 April. The Authority did not respond to this complaint. The Authority decided the information Mr X had provided met the medical standard. It did not inform him of this decision, and sent only holding responses to his chasing emails until 14 April, when it asked him for a DVLA share code.
37. Mr X provided a share code. It expired before the Authority tried to access it, and so the Authority requested a further code on 20 May. Mr X provided this on 3 June and the Authority issued a licence on 24 June 2025. This was over two years since Mr X first applied.

Analysis

38. There is no statutory timeframe for processing licence applications. But we would expect the Authority to do so in a timely manner as a matter of good administrative practice. The Authority should be able to deal with a fully completed straightforward application within six weeks of receipt.
39. Mr X’s application was not a straightforward one. The Authority needed some extra information from him, such as confirmation of his immigration status. Nor was it fully completed, in that the Authority decided his medical assessment was not valid. However, these complicating factors do not justify a licensing timeframe of more than two years. I set out below where the Authority was and was not at fault in its dealings with Mr X.

Delays in the application process

40. The Authority was at fault in delaying for significant periods at three key stages of the licensing process. There were delays of:
• Eight months between the Authority telling Mr X he was eligible to take the necessary assessments in May 2023 and offering him a test date in January 2024;
• Three months between Mr X passing the final assessment test in June 2024 and the Authority contacting him in late September 2024; and
• Two months between the Authority asking Mr X to provide a DVLA share code in mid-April 2025, and issuing his licence in late June 2025.
41. Along with other, shorter, delays that occurred throughout the licensing process, the Authority was responsible for a cumulative delay of well over a year. This was fault and meant Mr Y was unable to pursue his chosen job during this time.
42. The Authority told me that its ability to provide prompt service to its customers, in terms of processing licensing application and dealing with associated communications, was affected by the cyber security incident of late 2024 and the introduction of a new licensing system in early 2025. Had the Authority acted in line with the principles of good administrative practice throughout, Mr X’s licence should have been issued before either of these events occurred.

Administrative errors

43. The Authority made several administrative errors in its dealings with Mr X. These included: sending correspondence to an incorrect postal address; mistakenly telling him it was withdrawing his application, and awaiting the results of tests he had not yet taken; and neglecting to check DVLA codes before their expiry date. These faults caused Mr X the injustice of confusion, put him to time and trouble, and contributed to the delay in processing his application.

Poor, delayed and absent communications; failure to respond to complaints

44. The Authority did not provide substantive responses to Mr X’s emails between July and November 2023, and between October 2024 and April 2025. This failure to engage in meaningful communication was fault. This fault caused Mr X the injustice of frustration in that he could not get a response to his queries about the progress of his application. It also put him to significant time and trouble.
45. After Mr X explained, in January 2025, that the private GP had seen his full medical records (twice), the Authority decided it could accept the medical declaration. It did not inform Mr X of this decision at any point. This failure to communicate was fault, and caused Mr X uncertainty – he did not know whether he needed to complete a third medical declaration.
46. The Authority did not respond to Mr X’s formal complaints of 10 November 2023 and April 2025. This failure to act in line with its own complaints procedure was fault. This fault caused Mr X the injustice of being unable to have his complaints dealt with, or to escalate them through the stages of the procedure.

Not at fault

47. There were several matters Mr X complained about where I have found the Authority was not at fault. It was not fault that:
• Mr X did not receive the letter of December 2023 and did not notice the copy sent by email until February 2024;
• The Authority did not consider Mr X’s medical submission until he had passed the assessments, as that is its usual process; and
• The Authority decided that the first medical declaration did not enable Mr X to pass its “fit and proper person” test. That was a decision it was entitled to make because the first declaration signed by the private GP did not make it clear that he had access to Mr X’s full medical record (that is, records prior to March 2023).

Loss of earnings

48. Mr X wants compensation for loss of earnings. However, we do not normally recommend remedies that reimburse loss of earnings. This is because we are unlikely to be able to reach conclusive findings on such matters through our investigations. We cannot usually 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.

Action already taken by the Authority

49. As set out above, the Authority introduced new software in February 2025 which manages and records the internal licensing processes and provides an online portal for licensees and applicants. The new system allows applicants to track their application online and book assessments. This will improve the service for future applicants and will help prevent future injustice. Because the Authority is already taking suitable steps, I have not made any new service improvement recommendations. We will continue to monitor the Authority’s progress through our casework.
50. During my investigation the Authority offered to make an apology to Mr X along with a symbolic payment of £250. It made this offer in recognition of the Authority’s faults in terms of delays and poor communication. I welcome this offer which goes some way towards remedying Mr X’s injustice. However, it does not go far enough. I have therefore recommended further actions.

Back to top

Action

51. Within one month of the final decision, the Authority has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by its faults. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the proposed apology.
2. Pay Mr X a total of £750 to recognise the impact of its failings. I recommend this payment having considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. This recommendation includes a payment of £500 for the distress caused to Mr X because of the impact of the Authority’s delays and other faults. This takes account of the exceptional timescale of over two years in completing Mr X’s application. I recommend a further £250 for Mr X’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter for over two years.
52. This payment is recommended instead of, not in addition to, the £250 offered by the Authority during the investigation.
53. Within three months of the final decision, the Authority should consider the progress it has made in implementing the outcome of a review of the assessment process, and update us on this. It carried that review out in relation to a similar case in Summer 2024. The review covered:
• how applicants can contact officers in person to discuss their case where this might lead to speedier resolution;
• what measures it can introduce to ensure swift remedial action to correct any errors it makes. For example, to speedily rebook an applicant for an assessment where its error has resulted in a delay in them being able to do so;
• why it took six months to reply to a complaint and whether this points to any wider problems in its procedures for recognising and replying to complaints.
54. The Authority should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

55. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman