Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London delayed in renewing his private hire driver’s licence which left him unable to work. There is no fault in the way the Transport for London considered Mr X’s application to renew his private hire driver’s licence. It renewed his licence in line with its policies and procedures.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained Transport for London delayed renewing his private hire driver’s licence leaving him unable to work, causing him uncertainty and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an authority’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Authority as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. 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

6. Mr X applied to Transport for London (The Authority) in October 2024 to renew his private hire driver’s licence. The Authority carried out an initial assessment. In November 2024 it asked Mr X to provide his Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) share code and advised further reviews of his medical declaration were needed.
7. The Authority requested further medical information in January 2025, which Mr X provided.
8. Mr X’s private hire driver’s licence expired in February 2025.
9. In early February 2025 the Authority requested further medical information. The Authority said Mr X had resubmitted the same information and the matter was re-escalated to its medical team.
10. Mr X requested an update on his application. The Authority replied advising his medical information was still under review and requested Mr X provide additional information to confirm his medical fitness.
11. In March 2025, Mr X complained to the Authority, he said, he had already uploaded medical information in October 2024. He complained the Authority had asked for more medical information despite his GP saying there was no changes and he was repeatedly being told his application was under medical team review.
12. In its response the Authority advised that each application was dealt with on a case by case basis and specific timeframes could not be given. Further a cyber-attack in October 2024 had caused some delays to processing times. It asked again for Mr X to provide his DVLA share code.
13. In April 2025, the Authority invited Mr X to book a Safety, Equality and Regulatory Understanding (SERU) test. Mr X advised that he required reasonable adjustments (RA's) for the assessment due to a medical condition he had not previously disclosed. The Authority asked for evidence to support this. Mr X passed his SERU assessment in June 2025.
14. In August 2025 it wrote to Mr X to ask him to provide evidence that the new medical condition disclosed for his RA’s did not affect his driving. It said if this could not be provided, a driving test could be arranged.
15. Mr X provided the requested information, which the Authority says it originally asked for in May 2025. It said Mr X had met the group two DVLA standards and renewed his licence.
16. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us. However, Mr X told us in November 2025 that he was satisfied with the Authority’s actions he now had is renewal and no longer required our services.

The Authority’s response to us

17. The Authority acknowledges Mr X experienced a period of time where he was unlicensed and some of its responses could have been more detailed.
18. The Authority said after the cyber attack in October 2024. It took action to ensure processes were maintained, however the turnaround times for application processing was temporarily increased.
19. It said it could not provide the average delay in licensing renewal processing time since the cyber-attack, but was looking to start recording this information in the coming months. Further, additional staff had been recruited to the licensing department to reduce any delays.

Analysis

20. It is unfortunate that Mr X’s application to renew his private hire driver’s licence took 10 months. Much of the delay was due to the concerns about the medical declaration, and it took some time for Mr X to both provide the necessary evidence and to then complete the SERU test. There was no fault in the Authority’s decision to request further medical evidence to ensure Mr X met the statutory standards for his private hire driver’s licence.
21. There was no evidence of significant delay on the part of the Authority in considering Mr X’s application to renew his private hire driver’s licence.
22. The Authority has acknowledged that the cyber attack in October 2024 caused some delay to the processing of licence renewals. It has provided evidence of the actions it has taken to reduce these and how it will monitor applications going forward. I am satisfied with the actions of the authority and its proposed actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman