Summary: Mr X complained that Transport for London (TfL) has delayed processing his Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) Driver’s Licence application. I have found TfL at fault for a two-month delay once Mr X’s application was completed. This has caused Mr X distress. I have recommended TfL apologises to Mr X and makes a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained Transport for London (TfL) has unreasonably delayed processing his Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) Driver’s Licence application. This has impacted Mr X’s ability to work and earn a living and has been frustrating. He would like TfL to review its processes to prevent excessive delays for future applicants.

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 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)
3. 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

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

Back to top

What I found

Transport for London’s assessment process

6. TfL’s website explains how an individual can apply online for a new PHV driver’s licence. TfL processes new applications in the order of the date received.
7. Applicants must be over 21 years old when applying, hold a full driver’s licence and have the right to live and work in the UK.
8. The website explains the applicant must be of good character and have an enhanced criminal records check from the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
9. The applicant must be medically fit which means meeting the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) Group 2 standards. Most applicants have a medical examination with someone who has access to the applicants full medical history.
10. The applicant must pass a topographical skills assessment at a TfL driver assessment centre. They must also pass a speaking and listening assessment and a Safety, Equality and Regulatory Understanding (SERU) assessment.

What happened

11. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
12. Mr X applied to TfL for a PHV taxi driver’s licence in July 2023.
13. In September, the Council invited Mr X to the SERU, topographical and speaking and listening assessments in October. Mr X cancelled the assessments.
14. Mr X rebooked the assessments and attended in April 2024. He passed the SERU and speaking and listening assessments. He did not pass the topographical assessment.
15. Mr X retook and passed the topographical assessment in June.
16. In August, the Council did an initial review of Mr X’s application and sought further information. Mr X had not completed the medical declaration. TfL also asked Mr X for his DVLA share code and confirmation he had registered for the DBS update check and register service.
17. Within the week, Mr X sent the medical declaration and DVLA share code. He did not confirm he applied for the DBS update check.
18. At the beginning of October, Mr X sent the DBS update check information that TfL asked for in August.
19. In November, TfL wrote to Mr X and said it needed to complete further investigation to see if he met the DVLA group two medical standards. It said this might take a couple of weeks.
20. In December, TfL reviewed the medical information. It wrote to Mr X and asked for further information from his optician about his vision.
21. At the beginning of January 2025, the Council received further medical information from Mr X.
22. TfL’s medical team reviewed the further medical evidence in April. TfL issued Mr X his PHV driver licence.

The complaint

23. Mr X complained to TfL at the end of December 2024.
24. TfL issued its final response in February 2025. It said it must carry out several checks to confirm if the applicant is deemed fit and proper to be a PHV driver. Each application is considered on its own merits. The complaint response explained there were delays during the initial part of Mr X’s application because it needed further medical evidence and Mr X needed to rebook an assessment. It also explained there were delays caused by a cyber incident.
25. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in February. He said TfL had unreasonably delayed issuing his PHV driver’s licence. He said he understood there had been security delays but was aware that other applicants who applied at the same time had already had their applications processed. He said TfL’s handling of his case was inconsistent and lacks transparency.

Analysis

26. While there is no statutory timeframe for processing PHV driver’s licences, we expect licensing authorities to do so in a timely manner as a matter of good administrative practice. We consider an application should be processed within six weeks where it is fully completed and straightforward.
27. I understand Mr X’s frustration that his application has been continuing for a long-time, he applied in July 2023 and received his licence in January 2025. A significant amount of this delay was not within TfL’s control. At first, Mr X cancelled his assessments and then did not pass one of them. Later, TfL could not process the application because there was information missing from the application. TfL also had to ask further information before it could consider Ms X’s application. This is all outside TfL’s control. I do not find TfL at fault for the initial period of delay.
28. TfL became responsible for delay once Mr X’s application was complete. It received all the information required to process the application at the beginning of January 2025. From this time, TfL was responsible for the progress of Mr X’s application. We expect TfL to complete the application within six weeks from this date, which is the middle of February. TfL issued Mr X’s licence in early April. This is a delay of just under two months. This is fault.
29. While I understand Mr X’s frustration that other applicants had their applications processed quicker than his, each case is considered on its own merits and the processing time differs. For example, some cases need further information, and some applicants may not pass all the assessments first time. There can therefore not be a set timescale for all applications from the beginning of the process to the end. I do not find TfL at fault for failing to give Mr X a timeframe for the application to be completed. It would be impossible for this to be accurate considering the different elements within the process and how these might be different for different applicants.

Summary of fault causing injustice

30. TfL is at fault for a two-month delay issuing Mr X his licence. This has caused Mr X frustration; this is his injustice.

Action already taken by Transport for London

31. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it introduced new software in February 2025 which unfortunately caused delay for some applicants in the early stages of it being introduced, particularly those that had submitted incomplete applications. Going forward, the new software will manage and record the internal licensing processes and provide an online portal for licensees and applicants. The new system will bring many positive benefits once it is embedded, for example, it will allow applicants to track their application online and book assessments. This will improve the service for future applicants and will help prevent future injustice.

Back to top

Action

32. Within four weeks of my final decision, TfL agreed to apologise to Mr X for the delay and pay him £200 for the distress caused.
33. TfL should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find fault causing injustice. TfL has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman