Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Mr Z’s complaint about Transport for London’s failure to process the application he sent in March 2020 for a private driver hire licence. It failed to: explain changes it introduced at the time, following Covid-19 restrictions, to processing new applications; tell him of these in communication for about 7 months; respond promptly, or at all, to his correspondence; clarify whether he wanted to withdraw his application and get a refund of the application fees. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr Z complains about Transport for London’s (TFL) failure to process the application for a private driver hire licence he sent in March 2020; as a result, he suffered inconvenience, frustration, and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered all the information Mr Z provided and TFL’s response to my enquiries on his complaint, a copy of which I sent him. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr Z and TFL. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr Z applied to TFL for a private hire licence in March 2020. It cost him £310 which he paid from his overdraft. He is unhappy he had to continuously chase for information about progress on his application. He also complains TFL repeatedly asked him to provide his name, date of birth, and driving licence number (his ‘full details’) on several occasions when responding to his emails.
6. The evidence shows the following:

2020

• March: Mr Z sent his application to TFL;
• April: Following its receipt, TFL gave him a reference number;
• July: At the start of the month, Mr Z emailed TFL giving his full details after it had initially said it could not find his record in response to an email in which he gave his first and surname.
• August: Mid-month, Mr Z chased TFL again giving his initial and surname in the email. TFL replied asking for his full details so it could locate his record. TFL explained Mr Z had used a different email address;
• September: Mr Z chased TFL twice using his full name;
• October: Mr Z chased TFL giving his full name. He said if it had stopped issuing licenses, he wanted a refund. TFL responded explaining why it was not processing new applications. It gave a link for updates and changes but did not mention refunds;
• December: Mr Z again chased TFL and was told it could not find his record on its system. It asked for his full details. His email to TFL only contained his initial and surname. He warned he would wait 5 days for a response. If it could not find his details, he wanted a refund. When he provided them, TFL sent an update. With it, TFL explained he could withdraw his application but made no mention of refunds. He failed to respond. It also explained why it had not processed his application because of the Covid-19 restrictions.

7. His application was reviewed and sent to the topographical team in June 2021. TFL explained it processed his application after it did not receive, ‘any further requests for a refund’.
8. When he complained about his service through us, TFL explained it had to carry out several checks to ensure an applicant is a fit and proper person to be a licenced driver. During the initial restrictions because of Covid-19, due to staffing levels and significant changes in working arrangements, it focused on supporting critical taxi and private licensing functions. This was mainly licence renewals and acting on ‘safety-critical intelligence’ (which was not defined). This delayed processing new applications.
9. Mr Z says its approach was never explained to him since applying. He claims 2 friends applied, and received, their licences within 4 months during the same period but he did not provide their details.
10. In response to our enquiries, TFL also explained it started to process applications for new licences where preliminary checks were done and had reached the topographical stage of the process. Mr Z’s application was not at this stage and remained on hold. It confirmed it did not process any new applications in 2020. It invited Mr Z to a topographical assessment (map-reading skills) but he failed to book a place.
11. TFL offered to apologise to Mr Z for its handling of his enquiries and pay him £50.

Analysis

12. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. There was a failure by TFL to explain what was happening to his application under the new arrangements because of Covid-19 restrictions. I consider the failure to notify Mr Z of this change when they were introduced, amounts to fault.
2. TFL failed to explain the new arrangements to Mr Z until October, about 7 months after the introduction of Covid-19 restrictions and its own changes to processing new applications. This delay amounts to fault.
3. Many of the emails Mr Z sent TFL failed to contain his full name and address or any reference, for example. He has a relatively common surname. I consider it reasonable for TFL to ask Mr Z to provide full details as it needed to ensure it could match him to its records before responding.
4. TFL failed to respond promptly, or at all, to some of his emails. It accepts failings to provide adequate responses to his queries about progress on his application. The failures amount to fault.
5. It also accepted it failed to clarify whether he wanted to withdraw his application and get a refund. Mr Z first mentioned the possibility of getting a refund when he emailed in October 20, saying he wanted a refund if it had stopped issuing licenses. TFL had stopped issuing new licenses and could, at this point, have issued him with a refund. The failure to do so amounts to fault.
6. In December, Mr Z again referred to a refund saying he wanted his money returning if it could not find his details. TFL found his details but while it referred him to a link about withdrawing his application, it failed to mention refunds. It could have explored whether he wanted a refund in October or December when he mentioned it but failed to do so. I consider this failure amounts to fault.
7. I am satisfied the identified fault caused Mr Z an injustice. The fault caused him some distress: frustration; confusion; uncertainty; lost opportunity to decide whether to withdraw his application at an early stage; and time and trouble.

Back to top

Agreed action

13. I considered our guidance on remedies.
14. TFL agreed to carry out the following within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Mr Z a written apology for its failure to: explain the changes to the processing of applications when it introduced them; explain these changes to him for 7 months; promptly and fully respond, or respond at all, to his email queries; clarify and deal with his requests for refunds at the earliest opportunity;
2. Pay £125 to Mr Z for the injustice the identified fault caused;
3. Invite Mr Z to again apply to sit the topographical assessment;
4. Take steps to ensure significant changes to the processing arrangements of new applications are communicated to applicants promptly;
5. Ensure all applicant communication is responded to promptly and fully; and
6. Ensure staff are made aware of the need to explore, and fully and promptly respond to, requests for refunds from applicants.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I found fault on Mr Z’s complaint against Transport for London. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman