Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London delayed his Public Carriage Office licence application for over three years. The delay and poor communication caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and stress. We found the Authority at fault for the delay. The Authority has offered to apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment to recognise the fault, which we consider a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained Transport for London (the Authority) delayed his Public Carriage Office (PCO) licence application for over three years. The delay and poor communication caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and stress.

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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something an organisation has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated events from August 2024 when the Authority agreed to progress Mr X’s application. Although the Authority initially refused Mr X’s application in December 2023, he pursued his right of appeal in court and so I cannot investigate that period now.
7. From August 2024, Mr X reasonably believed his application was being progressed. I consider it proportionate to investigate events from August 2024 onwards, which also falls within 12 months of the complaint being made to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Authority as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. 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

Public Carriage Office (PCO) license

10. The Authority is responsible for licensing private hire drivers in London. A private hire driver licence, often referred to as a Public Carriage Office (PCO) licence, allows an individual to drive a licensed private hire vehicle. Applicants must meet the Authority’s requirements, including checks on identity, criminal records, medical fitness and driving history.

What happened

11. The Authority issued a refusal of Mr X’s PCO application in December 2023 on medical grounds. Mr X appealed this decision and proposed to take the matter to court. Before the appeal took place, however, the Authority revised its decision and agreed to progress Mr X’s application in August 2024.
12. Mr X complained to the Authority about the delay progressing his application in March 2025. He then complained to the Ombudsman in August 2025.
13. The Authority responded to Mr X’s complaint in late August 2025. It apologised for the delays and stated that his application would be “assessed as a matter of urgency”. Mr X then contacted the Authority in September and October 2025 asking for updates on his application.
14. The Authority issued Mr X’s PCO license in December 2025.

Analysis

15. 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 practice. The Authority should be able to deal with most applications within six weeks of receipt.
16. The Authority told Mr X in August 2024 that it would progress his application. It confirmed this again in August 2025 and reassured him that his application would be prioritised. Mr X had to contact the Authority multiple times before it issued his license in December 2025. This was around 16 months after the Authority first agreed to progress the application, which is a significant delay.
17. This delay is fault which caused Mr X uncertainty and frustration, and prevented Mr X from pursuing his chosen job during this time.
18. The Authority said that it suffered a cyber security incident in September 2024. It also introduced a software system to manage licensing application and renewals in February 2025. It said both events contributed to the delay experienced by Mr X, particularly the cyber security incident which was only one month after the Authority agreed to progress Mr X’s application. However, had the Authority processed Mr X’s application in a timely manner, the licence should have been issued before the new software system was introduced.
19. The new software introduced by the Authority in February 2025 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 help prevent future injustice. Because the Authority has already taken suitable steps, I have not made any new service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Action

20. The Authority has offered to make an apology to Mr X and 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, I do not think it is sufficient for the length of the delay, so I recommend, within one month of the final decision, the Authority should:
• Apologise to Mr X in accordance with our guidance on making an effective apology.
• Pay Mr X £500 in recognition of the avoidable uncertainty and frustration caused by the delays.
21. This payment is recommended instead of, not in addition to, the £250 offered by the Authority during the investigation.
22. The Authority should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

23. I find fault causing injustice. The Authority has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman