Summary: TfL delayed considering the medical information Mr X put in with his taxi licence application but there is no fault in how TfL processed the application besides that. The delay did not cause Mr X a significant injustice other than frustration as TfL refused his application. An apology is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained TfL:
• delayed processing his licence application and in asking him for medical information;
• misled him as it said he would receive his licence straight after he passed the tests; and
• ignored his correspondence.
2. Mr X says TfL’s actions cost him money and affected his health.

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 there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr X's comments;
• made enquiries of TfL and considered the comments and documents TfL provided.
8. Mr X 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

Relevant law and guidance

9. 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 licensing 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.

TfL's procedures

10. On receiving a new application, 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. TfL also asks for medical information and for a code that allows the applicant to share their driving licence information with TfL, using the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA)'s online facility.
11. Once the applicant has passed the initial assessment, TfL 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.
12. After the applicant has completed the assessments, 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. In assessing whether an applicant is medically fit, TfL will have regard to the medical standard that would apply in relation to a DVLA Group 2 licence.
15. Group 2 licences are required for large goods vehicles and buses and the medical standards for Group 2 drivers are much higher than those for Group 1 (ordinary motor cars and motorcycles). This higher standard requirement reflects the view that the nature of a licensed driver's employment places them in the category of vocational driver. Additionally, the fact that drivers’ work patterns are unregulated affords further weight to the need for Group 2 requirement. The Group 2 standard is set out in the DVLA publication ‘Assessing fitness to drive - a guide for medical professionals.’
16. The medical reports, together with the DVLA guidelines mentioned above, should generally enable the applicant's fitness to be licensed to be determined. Each case will be considered on its merits. Where doubt exists, the applicant's doctor or consultant may be asked for additional information and/or the applicant’s medical history may be referred to TfL’s specialist occupational medical advisor. When it appears from these enquiries an applicant does not meet the required standard, they will be informed of this in writing and given the opportunity to present further (written) medical evidence before a decision is made.
17. TfL's website does not state how long an application is expected to take. TFL says at no point throughout the process can it provide a date on which a final decision will be made.

What happened

18. Mr X put in an application for a taxi licence on 13 September 2024. TfL acknowledged receipt of that application and told Mr X because of a high volume of applications it would contact him following an initial assessment in around 21 days.
19. Mr X chased TfL between October and November 2024. On each occasion TfL told Mr X his application was with the driver assessment team.
20. TfL wrote to Mr X on 19 November to tell him he needed to book the relevant assessments. TfL told Mr X after he had completed the relevant assessments TfL would review the application and consider his medical fitness. TfL told Mr X it could ask for further information to confirm he met all the required criteria to get a licence.
21. Mr X’s assessment took place on 16 December.
22. Mr X contacted TfL later in December to raise concerns about delays. TfL explained each application had to undergo extra checks to ensure the security and safety of drivers and the public and therefore it could not provide timescales. TfL explained a cyber security incident affected new applications. TfL apologised for any inconvenience.
23. On 2 January 2025 TfL told Mr X he had successfully completed the assessment. TfL wrote to Mr X again on 24 January to tell him part of his original medical submission was missing. Mr X provided the missing section on 28 January.
24. Mr X continued to chase TfL between February and April. On each occasion TfL explained Mr X’s application was with its medical team. Then, on 11 April TfL told Mr X it needed further medical information.
25. Mr X provided medical information on 2 May. TfL told Mr X it had referred the information to its occupational health team.
26. On 15 May TfL told Mr X the occupational health team was not satisfied with the information provided. TfL asked for further information. Mr X provided that on 5 June and TfL passed the new information to its occupational health team.
27. On 8 July TfL told Mr X because it had concerns about his mood stability, based on the information provided by the GP, it could not consider licensing him until November 2025. When Mr X challenged that TfL explained it had to be satisfied licensees met the DVLA group 2 medical standards to receive a licence. TfL explained its view that Mr X had not met the DVLA criteria of mood stability for 6 months as the medical evidence it had said Mr X was still suffering from low mood. TfL explained it could review his application in November subject to receiving further medical evidence.
28. TfL explained Mr X did not have a right of appeal as it had not formally rejected the application. TfL explained Mr X’s application was now on hold as he could meet the medical requirements in November. TfL explained if it rejected the application Mr X would have a right of appeal to the magistrates court. TfL said if that appeal was unsuccessful his application would be closed and he would need to put in a new one.
29. Mr X asked TfL to issue a decision so he could appeal. TfL issued a refusal on 5 August. Mr X appealed. That appeal was due to be heard in January 2026.
30. In December 2025 Mr X put in further medical evidence and asked TfL to review its decision. TfL referred that information to its occupational health team. TfL wrote to Mr X on 20 January to explain it still needed information. TfL told Mr X he could either continue with his appeal or get the extra information needed. Mr X continued with his appeal.
31. Since then Mr X has provided updated medical information to TfL. TfL is now satisfied Mr X meets the relevant medical standards for licensing.

Analysis

32. Mr X says TfL delayed processing his licence application. There is no statutory timeframe for processing licence applications. However, we would expect TfL to do so in a timely manner. We would expect TfL to deal with a fully completed straightforward application within six weeks of receipt.
33. I am satisfied in Mr X’s case though the application was not a straightforward one. That is because TfL was not satisfied Mr X had provided a fully completed medical form. TfL also considered it needed further medical information based on the information Mr X’s GP had provided about his low mood. TfL can ask for more information from an applicant and I cannot criticise it for doing that.
34. I understand Mr X’s concern about not receiving a date for his assessment until December 2024. However, as I have made clear, there is no statutory timeframe for processing a licence application. I do not consider a three-month delay warrants a finding of fault.
35. I am concerned though that once Mr X passed the assessment in December 2024 TfL delayed making a decision based on the medical evidence Mr X provided. The evidence I have seen satisfies me TfL had a completed medical form by 28 January 2025. However, TfL did not consider that medical evidence and tell Mr X it needed more information until 11 April. That is a considerable delay. I recognise during that period TfL experienced a cyber attack and was transferring over to a new IT system which added in delays. Nevertheless, that delay is fault.
36. Mr X says TfL should have asked for the further information when he put his application in during September 2024. However, it is normal practice for TfL to consider an applicant’s medical history once the applicant has passed the assessments. That is what TfL did in this case and I cannot criticise it for doing that. TfL would not need to consider an applicant’s medical status if they failed the assessment.
37. I understand Mr X’s frustration though as he had to go back to his GP for further information. However, TfL must ensure those granted taxi licences meet the group 2 medical status outlined by DVLA. I therefore cannot criticise TfL for asking for further information from Mr X’s GP as it did not consider the information it had showed Mr X was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. That is a decision TfL was entitled to reach and not one I could criticise. After April 2025 I am satisfied TfL dealt with the medical information Mr X provided relatively quickly. I therefore do not consider any delays after April 2025 were due to fault by TfL.
38. Mr X raises concerns about TfL telling him in July 2025 it was not satisfied with the medical information provided but he could provide updated medical information in November. I cannot criticise TfL for deciding the medical information it had in July 2025 was inadequate to show Mr X was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Nor can I criticise TfL in saying it would review the case in November 2025. That is in accordance with TfL’s processes and DVLA guidance.
39. Mr X says TfL told him if he passed the assessments in December 2024 he would receive his licence immediately. Mr X says he acted on that advice in buying a vehicle before he completed his assessments in December 2024. Mr X says he would not have bought that vehicle had he known he was not guaranteed to receive a licence.
40. TfL says it holds no evidence to suggest it told Mr X it would grant his licence immediately should he pass the assessments in December 2024. Nor have I seen any documentary evidence to suggest TfL told Mr X that. TfL’s communications at an early stage with Mr X made clear it would only carry out a full assessment of the application once he had passed the necessary assessments. That is TfL’s normal process. I therefore do not consider it likely, on the balance of probability, any applicant would receive their licence straight after passing the assessments or be told that they would. In those circumstances I cannot recommend TfL refund Mr X’s costs in buying a vehicle which I note he bought before he had passed the December 2024 assessment.
41. Mr X says TfL failed to respond to his correspondence. The evidence shows Mr X regularly chased TfL about his licence application. The documentary evidence also shows Mr X repeatedly raised concerns about the delays. I am satisfied TfL responded to Mr X’s contacts. I therefore could not say TfL ignored Mr X’s correspondence.
42. So, I have found that fault by TfL delayed the decision on Mr X’s licence application by around two months. Considering the fact TfL refused Mr X’s licence application I could not say fault by TfL affected whether Mr X received a licence or not. I therefore consider Mr X’s injustice is limited to his frustration as he would have received that decision earlier, but for the fault.
43. I consider an apology satisfactory remedy. I do not recommend any procedural remedies as I am satisfied TfL now has a different IT system in place to manage licence applications.

Back to top

Action

44. Within one month of my decision TfL should apologise to Mr X for the frustration 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.
45. TfL should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I find fault causing injustice. TfL will take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman