Summary: Mr X complained that, because of an error by Transport for London, there was a delay in renewing his taxi licence which prevented him from working causing him distress and financial loss. We found Transport for London has offered a satisfactory remedy for the distress caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that, because of an error by Transport for London, there was a delay in renewing his taxi licence which prevented him from working for 11 days causing him distress and financial loss.

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. 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

3. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and Transport for London (TfL) as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
4. 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

Key facts

5. Mr X applied for a renewal of his taxi licence on 21 April 2024 and paid the required fee of £310.
6. On 7 June TfL sent an email to Mr X reminding him to submit a renewal application. Mr X responded explaining he had submitted his application on 21 April.
7. TfL responded on 10 June confirming it had received Mr X’s application and payment on 21 April.
8. Having heard nothing further, Mr X contacted TfL on 22 July chasing up his new licence and explaining that his existing licence was due to expire shortly. TfL responded explaining that, although it had received Mr X’s payment, it had not received his completed renewal application. It advised him to log back in to his online account to continue the process to submit the application.
9. A member of TfL’s licensing team telephoned Mr X on 30 July to help him submit his online application.
10. Mr X’s existing licence expired on 8 August.
11. On 14 August Mr X complained to TfL. It responded explaining that an error was made in its letter dated 10 June. It explained that, although it had received Mr X’s payment on 21 April, it did not receive his renewal application until 30 July. It apologised for the error.
12. TfL issued Mr X’s new licence on 19 August.

Analysis

13. There is no statutory timeframe for processing licence applications. But we would expect TfL to do so in a timely manner as a matter of good administrative practice. We consider it should generally be able to deal with a fully completed straightforward application within 6 weeks of receipt.
14. Once TfL received Mr X’s application in July it processed it in a timely fashion.
15. Mr X failed to submit his application successfully on 21 April. However, he was unaware of this, and TfL’s letter of 10 June stated that his application had been received. This led him to believe it was being processed so he took no further action. It was not until he chased the matter up several weeks later that TfL informed him that his application had not been received.
16. TfL accepts there was an error in its letter of 10 June. In reliance on this letter Mr X believed his application was progressing. If TfL had informed Mr X in this letter that his application had not been received, he would have had time to resubmit it and have it processed before his existing licence expired.
17. This error therefore caused Mr X injustice. He was without a licence and unable to work for 11 days. He also suffered avoidable distress.
18. TfL has apologised to Mr X and has now offered to refund his payment of £310. I consider TfL’s actions represent a satisfactory remedy for the distress caused and are in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.
19. Mr X wants compensation for loss of earnings. However, we do not normally recommend remedies that reimburse loss of earnings. This is because we are unlikely to be able to reach conclusive findings on such matters through our investigations. We cannot usually 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.

Back to top

Decision

20. I find fault causing injustice. TfL has offered a satisfactory to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman