Summary: Mr Y complained on behalf of Mr X that Transport for London wrongly delayed renewing his private hire driver licence. He said this caused significant loss of earnings and distress. We have decided to end our investigation because Mr X was aware of the matter more than 12 months before the complaint to us, and because we have decided we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained on behalf of Mr X that Transport for London wrongly delayed renewing his private hire driver licence. He said this caused significant loss of earnings and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
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 a body we investigate has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. This is a summary of key events. It is not a detailed chronology of everything that happened.
10. Transport for London (TfL) is responsible for licensing all London private hire drivers. Mr X held a private hire driver licence.
11. On 28 July 2023 TfL wrote to Mr X. It invited him to apply to renew his licence. It provided him the forms and information to do so.
12. On 10 October Mr X submitted his application to renew his licence. TfL contacted Mr X and said there were problems with his application. TfL said the main problem was its records of information about Mr X that did not match his application. Mr X responded. He said TfL’s records were wrong.
13. On 3 December Mr X’s licence expired and he could no longer work.
14. Throughout December TfL and Mr X contacted each other about his application. Mr X complained about the delay because he could no longer work. TfL said it had found further problems with his application.
15. TfL and Mr X continued to contact each other about his application from January to May 2024.
16. On 30 May TfL renewed Mr X’s private hire driver licence. He started working shortly after.
17. Mr X submitted stage one and stage two complaints about the delays and loss of earnings in October 2024 and April 2025 respectively. TfL did not provide a response to either complaint.
18. Mr Y complained to us on behalf of Mr X on 14 September 2025.

Analysis

The time it took to complain to us.

19. Mr X’s complaint is about TfL’s actions that prevented him from working as a private hire driver from 3 December 2023. Mr X’s complaint was first made to us on 13 September 2025, about 19 months later. It was therefore late.
20. I have decided there are not good reasons why Mr X did not complain to us sooner. I acknowledge TfL did not respond to his complaints. I have decided this is not a good reason due to the amount of time that passed between his first complaint to TfL and his complaint to us.

The outcome Mr X wants.

21. Mr X said the outcome he wants is compensation for loss of income for more than six months. He has cited a large sum of money.
22. Our Guidance on Remedies explains how we aim to remedy injustice. It says where we recommend a payment, it is often a modest amount whose value is intended to be largely symbolic, rather than purely financial. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation, and we direct people to the courts where that is their primary goal.
23. It goes on to say this is because we are unlikely to be able to reach conclusive findings (on the balance of probabilities) on such matters through our investigations. We cannot usually, on balance, 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. If complainants are only seeking such reimbursement, we may decide to end our investigation because we cannot achieve the sought outcome.
24. For these reasons I have decided we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Findings

25. I have decided to end my investigation into Mr X’s complaint.
26. This is because it is late, and I have decided there is not a good reason Mr X did not complain within 12 months. I therefore cannot investigate as explained in paragraph 4.
27. It is also because we do not continue an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. I have decided this applies to the outcome of financial compensation for loss of earnings Mr X wants. I have therefore decided not to continue the investigation in line with paragraphs 2 and 6.

Back to top

Decision

28. I have ended my investigation because it is late and I have decided there is not a good reason Mr X did not complain to us within 12 months, and because I have decided we cannot achieve the outcome of financial compensation for loss of earnings he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman