Summary: Ms X complained Transport for London (TFL) did not process her application for a taxi licence within the three-week timeframe, causing her distress, time and trouble. TFL are not at fault for failing to process the application within three weeks. TFL are at fault for not processing the application within a reasonable timeframe, failing to explain the process and not giving accurate updates to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained TFL did not process her application for a private hire licence within the three-week timeframe. The acknowledgement email said TFL would process Ms X’s application in three weeks, it has been several months without an outcome. Ms X also complained about the lack of response to her complaint.
2. Ms X says she this has caused her a loss of income, inconvenience, frustration and time and trouble.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by Transport for London (TFL) and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• London Hackney Carriages Act 1843 and the Private Hire Vehicle Act 1998 (as amended).
6. Ms X and TFL had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

7. The power to grant Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) drivers licence is contained within section 13 of the Private Hire Vehicles Act 1998 (as amended). The local authority shall grant a licence to an applicant if satisfied they are:
• at least 21 years of age;
• held a driving licence (from Great Britain, Northern Ireland, European Union or European Economic Area) for at least three years;
• is a fit and proper person to hold a licence;
• is entitled to work as a PHV driver in the UK;
• has appropriate knowledge of London and general topographical skills;
• meets any additional requirements prescribed by the Council; and
8. There is no statutory time frame for processing applications.

TFL’s policies and procedures

9. On receiving a new application, TFL completes an initial assessment within 21 days. This means carrying out early checks, for example, ensuring the applicant submitted the required documents and has undertaken an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check.
10. Once the applicant has passed the initial assessment, TFL invites them to apply for a topographical skills assessment and a safety, equality and regulatory understanding assessment. The time taken to complete the assessments depends on several reasons, for example, how quickly the applicant books the assessment, the availability of assessment dates and whether the applicant passes the test.
11. After the applicant has completed the assessment, TFL places their application in a queue for final review. TFL must be satisfied the applicant is ‘fit and proper’ to drive a taxi before it grants the licence.
12. TFL processes cases in date received order and considers applications on a case-by-case basis.
13. There are several processes outside TFLs control, for example DBS and medical checks.
14. TFLs website does not state how long an application is expected to take.

What happened

15. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
16. Ms X applied for a PHD licence at the beginning of March 2022.
17. Ms X received an acknowledgment from TFL the same day. It said ‘…our initial assessment will currently take place in approximately 21 days.’
18. Ms X did not receive any communication from TFL within the 21 days to confirm it completed the initial assessment.
19. Ms X contacted TFL at the beginning of April 2022 asking for an update. TFL responded saying her application was undergoing an initial assessment.
20. At the beginning of May, Ms X had not received any correspondence from TFL. Ms X emailed TFL and asked for an update. TFL responded and said Ms X’s application was in the initial stages of the application and had not been fully assessed. It said it would contact Ms X once it had assessed her application and tell her of the next stage.
21. Ms X responded and said this was not acceptable. She asked how long her application would take and what the difference is between an initial assessment and the application being processed. The response said the applications team were assessing her application but could not give a time frame.
22. In a further email response from TFL to Ms X towards the end of May, TFL said Ms X’s application was undergoing a full assessment by the Applications team.
23. Ms X asked for the matter to be referred to a senior member of staff. TFL said it passed the query to the team to be assessed. It did not confirm the matter had been referred to a senior member of staff.
24. Ms X complained directly to the Customer Correspondence Manager at the end of May 2022.
25. At the beginning of June, in response to Ms X’s email, TFL said Ms X’s application had been received and was undergoing an initial assessment. It had previously said in May her application was undergoing a full assessment which would indicate her application was further along the process. The email said TFL could not provide a time frame on how long the application would take.
26. In early June, Ms X asked for the matter to be referred to a manager. The Officer asked her to make the complaint to them which they would send to a manager. Ms X explained she had already emailed the Customer Correspondence Manager directly and had not received a response and attached a copy of the email.
27. In the middle of June, TFL invited Ms X to attend her topographical assessment. Ms X passed the assessment in the middle of July 2022.
28. At the end of July, Ms X emailed TFL asking for an update. TFL responded at the beginning of August and confirmed she had passed the test and her application was now with the application team to process.
29. The Correspondence Investigations Officer at TFL responded to Ms X’s complaint at the beginning of September 2022. The Officer apologised for the delay in responding to Ms X. The Officer explained applications are considered on an individual basis and several checks must be completed before they can decide an applicant is fit and proper to hold a licence. The time taken for checking each application varies depending on the information provided which means TFL cannot specify a time frame for processing.
30. Ms X asked for an update on her application towards the end of September 2022. In response to Ms X’s email, TFL said her application was awaiting final assessment and explained there had been some delay. It thanked Ms X for her patience and apologised for inconvenience caused. TFL said it could not give a date when her licence would be completed but explained it was working on applicants who took the test in mid-June. TFL provided a similar update at the end of September 2022.
31. TFL completed the final review of Ms X’s application in the middle of October. TFL wrote to Ms X and sought a new DVLA share code. Ms X provided the share code. Ms X received her licence in mid-November 2022, nine months after Ms X applied for the licence.
32. In correspondence with me, TFL accepted Ms X’s application took longer than usual and was not processed to the expected standard. It explained the delay was also due to the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which it prioritised safety critical activities. TFL said it took time to get back to “normal” following the pandemic. It had a back log of applications and needed to recruit and train new staff.

Analysis

33. Ms X understood TFLs email saying an initial assessment would take place within 21 days meant she would receive her licence at the end of this period. This is not the case. The initial assessment is only the first stage of the process as explained in paragraph nine. There are several other stages following the initial assessment, before TFL grants the licence. TFL did not say Ms X would receive her licence within 21 days. TFL are not at fault.
34. TFL’s policy and procedures say it will undertake an initial assessment within 21 days of receipt of application. TFL confirmed this in an email to Ms X when she submitted her application at the beginning of March 2022. In response to my enquiries, TFL said in this case, due to the volume of applications received, it did not carry out the initial review within the 21 days.
35. TFL wrote several emails to Ms X explaining her application was undergoing an initial assessment. As late as June 2022, TFL emailed Ms X to say her application was undergoing the initial assessment. This is three months after Ms X applied and well outside the 21-day period. This is fault.
36. Correspondence dated April and May said the initial assessment was being carried out. An email from the end of May said Ms X application was undergoing the full assessment. In later emails from June, TFL said the application was still undergoing the initial assessment. The correspondence is confused and unclear about the progress of the case which led to Ms X being confused and frustrated with the process. This is fault causing injustice to Ms X.
37. Ms X emailed TFL regularly seeking updates. TFL consistently replied to Ms X’s emails in a timely fashion.
38. Within the email correspondence, TFL consistently said it could not give a time frame for when Ms X’s application would be processed, and her licence granted. In response to my enquiries, TFL explained the licence application process is multi-staged, can require further information from the applicant and depend on third parties, for example requesting DBS and medical checks. It is therefore not possible to give a target date for completion. TFL are not at fault for not providing a completion date as this was impossible due to factors beyond its control and a target date would be unrealistic. TFL could have provided better updates and explained the reasons for the delay, for example, if it was awaiting medical or DBS checks to be returned, or that it had a backlog. It did not, this is not best practice.
39. In its email correspondence to Ms X, TFL said it could not provide a time frame for completion. It did not explain the reason for this. Neither did it explain the process to Ms X and explain where she was within it. Ms X explained to me her frustration in the process. She said TFL did not give a proper explanation for the delay or give details about the progress of her case. She said she received the same generic responses to her emails when she sought an update. On reading the email correspondence, the responses from TLF are not specific and provide little personal detail. This is not best practice. Had TFL given Ms X detail about her application, this may have lessened the injustice she suffered.
40. While there is no statutory time frame for processing applications, we would expect authorities to do so within a reasonable timeframe. In response to my enquiries, TFL said the information provided in Ms X’s application was satisfactory and it did not need to seek further clarification or information. It was a relatively “straight forward” application. I consider nine months an excessive amount of time to process a standard licence application. This is fault.
41. In correspondence with me, TFL explained the COVID-19 pandemic impacted on its ability to process new applications. I understand TFL prioritised safety critical activities during the pandemic and it took time to recover, I do not find the Council at fault for prioristing its work. I do find TFL at fault for not explaining this to Ms X at the time and failing to keep her updated about the progress of her application.
42. TFL failed to respond to Ms X’s complaint in a timely fashion. In response to my enquiries it explained this may be due to confusion caused by the volume of correspondence. This is fault.

Summary

43. TFL is not at fault for not completing Ms X’s application in 21 days as Ms X understood, or for failing to give a timeframe for completion.
44. TFL is at fault for not completing an initial assessment within 21 days and taking nine months to process Ms X’s application.
45. TFL promptly responded to Ms X’s request for updates however its responses were unclear and confusing and did not provide an accurate update about Ms X’s application or the process itself. Neither did it explain the continued impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. TFL also failed to respond to Ms X’s complaint in a timely fashion. This is fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. Within four weeks of my final decision, TFL have agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms X in writing for its failure to provide accurate and useful updates on the progress of her application and for the nine month wait for her licence to be granted.
• Pay Ms X £300 to recognise the time and trouble, frustration and distress its faults caused.
47. Within eight weeks of my final decision, TFL have agreed to:
• Consider how it can better explain the stages of the application process to new applicants and ensure Officers are equipped to explain this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman