Summary: Mr X complained that Transport for London (TfL) delayed processing his application for a private hire driver license. We found fault because TfL did not actively progress the application for several months, delayed identifying outstanding information, and failed to respond adequately to Mr X's requests for updates. These faults caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty, frustration, and unnecessary time and trouble pursuing the matter. We recommend for TfL to apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained Transport for London (TfL) delayed processing his application for a private hire driver license, despite him meeting the requirements.
2. Mr Y says the issue has led to him being unable to work, causing a loss of income and significant inconvenience.

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 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)
4. 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.
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and TfL as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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

Relevant law and guidance

8. 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.

Transport for London’s assessment process

9. When TfL receives a new application for a Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) driver licence, it carries out an initial assessment. This includes checking that the applicant has submitted the required documentation and completed an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. TfL also requests medical information and requires applicants to provide a code that allows TfL to view their driving licence details through the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) online service.
10. Once an applicant has passed the initial assessment, TfL invites them to complete the required assessments. These include a topographical skills assessment, which tests the applicant’s ability to read maps and identify the most direct route between locations, a Safety, Equality and Regulatory Understanding (SERU) assessment and, where applicable, an English language assessment. The time taken to complete this stage varies depending on factors such as assessment availability, how quickly the applicant books the tests and whether they pass first time.
11. After the applicant has completed the required assessments, TfL places the application in a queue for final review. Before granting a licence, TfL must be satisfied the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold one.
12. TfL processes applications in date order and considers each case on its individual merits.
13. Applicants must meet the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) Group 2 medical standards. Most applicants are required to undergo a medical examination completed by a medical professional with access to their full medical history.
14. TfL does not publish an expected processing time for PHV driver licence applications and says it cannot provide applicants with a date by which a final decision will be made.

What happened

15. Mr X applied for a Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) driver licence in August 2024. TfL acknowledged receipt of the application and advised that, due to a high volume of applications, it expected to contact him following an initial assessment within approximately 21 days.
16. In November, TfL told Mr X its initial assessment was complete, and it would arrange for him to undertake the required driver assessments.
17. Mr X completed the assessments in January 2025. TfL subsequently confirmed he had achieved the required standard and advised that processing of his application would continue.
18. In February, TfL informed Mr X that his application remained incomplete because it had not received authority to access his driving licence information through the DVLA online service. Mr X provided the required code the following day. Later that month, TfL confirmed it had successfully accessed the information and advised that his application was undergoing a full assessment.
19. Between April and September 2025, Mr X contacted TfL on several occasions seeking an update on the progress of his application.
20. In September, TfL responded and explained it was experiencing higher-than-usual volumes of enquiries and applications. It said it was prioritising urgent matters, including the renewal of existing licences. Mr X continued to seek updates.
21. In October, TfL escalated the application for review. During that review it identified that Mr X’s medical declaration had not been fully completed and requested further medical information together with a copy of his DBS certificate.
22. Mr X provided the requested medical information the following day and asked whether TfL required a copy of the original DBS certificate. He also submitted a formal complaint about the delay in processing his application.
23. TfL confirmed it required a copy of the DBS certificate. Mr X provided this later that month.
24. TfL responded to Mr X’s complaint later in October 2025. It explained that delays had arisen following the introduction of a new processing system in February 2025 and a cyber incident which had affected its services. TfL outlined steps it had taken to improve performance, including increasing staffing levels within its licensing team. The complaint response also stated the officer handling the complaint would personally monitor the progress of the application.
25. Mr X advised TfL that he had already supplied the information and documents it had requested.
26. TfL acknowledged receipt of the additional information and said it would contact Mr X in due course.
27. Having received no further update, Mr X contacted TfL again in November seeking information about the progress of his application.
28. TfL completed its assessment and issued Mr X’s PHV driver's licence in January 2026.

My findings

29. There is no statutory timeframe within which TfL must determine an application for a PHV driver's licence. However, public bodies should process applications without avoidable delay. In this case, I consider the time taken to review and determine Mr X's application was excessive.
30. By February 2025, Mr X had completed the required assessments and TfL had advised him his application was undergoing a full assessment. However, TfL did not carry out a substantive review of the application until October 2025, around eight months later. During that review, TfL identified outstanding information it required, including a completed medical declaration and a copy of Mr X's DBS certificate. While TfL was entitled to seek this information, it did not identify the omissions until October 2025. Had TfL reviewed the application within a reasonable timeframe, those matters could have been identified and resolved much earlier.
31. The fact TfL did not identify the incomplete medical declaration and missing DBS certificate until October 2025 indicates the application was not actively progressed for a significant period after February 2025. This delay amounts to fault. Mr X provided the requested information promptly, but it then took TfL a further three months to complete the application and issue his licence in January 2026.
32. I acknowledge TfL experienced operational difficulties during this period, including the implementation of a new IT system and the impact of a cyber incident. However, those factors do not remove TfL's responsibility to process applications within a reasonable timeframe. Overall, I consider the application took significantly longer to determine than would reasonably be expected and that this delay was fault.
33. TfL also failed to respond to several of Mr X's requests for an update between April and September 2025. This was further fault. The lack of communication caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and put him to unnecessary time and trouble in repeatedly pursuing information about his application.
34. In its complaint response, TfL advised that an officer would personally monitor the progress of Mr X's application. However, there is no evidence this resulted in any meaningful update or expedited review. Mr X was required to contact TfL again in November 2025 seeking information about the progress of his application. This further contributed to the uncertainty and frustration caused by the delay.
35. Mr X says the delay prevented him from working as a PHV driver and resulted in a loss of income. However, I cannot determine, even on the balance of probabilities, when Mr X would otherwise have been licensed had TfL acted without fault, nor what income he would have earned during that period. For that reason, I have not recommended a remedy for loss of earnings.

Back to top

Action

36. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, TfL has agreed to:
• apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and 
• pay Mr X £400 to recognise the distress, uncertainty and time and trouble caused by the delays and poor communication.
37. I have not recommended any wider service improvements. This is because TfL has explained that it has already implemented measures to address the issues that contributed to delays, including increasing staffing resources following the introduction of a new IT system and the cyber incident it experienced. In the circumstances, I do not consider further recommendations are necessary.
38. TfL should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman