Declining the licence application
19. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and we have not found any indications that something has gone wrong when the DVLA declined Mr A’s application in May 2020.
20. Our Principles of Good Administration say public bodies should be clear to customers about their entitlements and what they can and cannot expect from the public body. They say public bodies should act according to their statutory powers, duties, and any other rules governing the service they provide.
21. Mr A says the DVLA made a mistake when declining his licence application. He says it based this on information his GP provided which was wrong.
22. When the ICA responded to Mr A’s complaint, it explained the fitness to drive framework referring to the Road Safety Act 1988, the AFTD, and the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999. It said the DVLA has a duty to protect road safety which includes ensuring licence applicants are fit to drive. Part of this is investigating any potential substance misuse.
23. Our role is to decide whether the DVLA acted appropriately on information it had at the time regarding Mr A’s fitness to drive. We cannot form a view on its decision directly.
24. Since Mr A was already banned for drug driving the DVLA undertook relevant tests to determine if it was an ongoing issue or not. Part of its investigation was to obtain information from its own doctor and Mr A’s GP. His GP provided the DVLA with information which indicated there was still substance misuse within the last six months. This resulted in the DVLA declining his application in May 2020.
25. We cannot decide whether the information from the GP was correct or not as this is a matter between Mr A and his GP.
26. However, we can see the DVLA took appropriate and necessary steps to make a decision on Mr A’s fitness to drive. At the time, we can see it considered information it had from its own doctor, his GP and relevant test results, in line with its duties. When communicating the decision to Mr A it explained why it made that decision and what he could do thereafter, which was to reapply.
27. We are satisfied the DVLA followed the correct process here and this is in line with our principles. We can see no indication of maladministration.
Delays to Mr A’s licence application and a refund
28. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the event(s) complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. We have done this, and we have found the DVLA has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.
29. Looking again at our Principles of Good Administration, they say public bodies should do what they say they are going to do. They should behave helpfully, dealing with people promptly and within reasonable timescales.
30. Mr A applied for a licence in November 2019. The DVLA sent him information about the tests required and that he would need to book an appointment with its doctor. In December 2019 he raised concerns about the tests. He initially withdrew his application but made a new one. Mr A had an appointment with the DVLA doctor in February 2020.
31. Following this the DVLA decided it needed to investigate further so enclosed some questionnaires to Mr A in February 2020. When it received them back the DVLA wrote to his GP in March requesting they fill in some questionnaires. The ICA acknowledges it could have saved two weeks here if it had sent the GP questionnaires simultaneously to Mr A.
32. The DVLA received the questionnaires back from the GP and matched them to his case in April 2020. A date manually written on the questionnaires suggests the DVLA received them back in the middle of April. The DVLA declined Mr A’s application in May 2020 based on the GP’s information.
33. Following his application being declined in May 2020, Mr A raised concerns about the information provided by his GP. The DVLA invited him to provide further information. The GP did so and in June 2020 the DVLA doctor decided this new statement was supportive in inviting Mr A to apply again. He did so in June 2020. Meanwhile, there was some overlapping correspondence from Mr A’s new GP in June 2020, which too was supportive of a new application but not linked to his case until July 2020.
34. The ICA identified a delay of 10 days from when the first GP sent a new statement and it being linked to his case, and another 10 days from the new GP’s statement being sent to the DVLA doctor and he agreeing a new application could be made. However, they attributed this to pressures of Covid-19.
35. They also say the statement from the new GP was delayed but had no material impact on the progress of Mr A’s subsequent application because he had already been invited to apply, and did apply again, before this. We agree with that conclusion.
36. In June 2020 when Mr A applied for his licence he sent in his application forms and a standing order for the £90 fee. He called the DVLA twice in July 2020. The operator told him his application had been rejected in early July 2020 because, according to the system, his application form was not included. However, the DVLA wrote to him later in July 2020 advising Mr A it was rejected due to no payment being included. This is not clear information about what happened.
37. Later in July 2020 Mr A applied again, sending his forms and a payment, this time by cheque. He also included a complaint with his papers. In August 2020 Mr A called the DVLA because he found out both his payments had been cashed. Five days later he called again to advise of a change of address. The DVLA wrote to Mr A to say he needed another appointment with its doctor along with a urine drug screen.
38. In late August 2020 the DVLA wrote to Mr A and explained it would send a refund to him for £90 because it acknowledged he sent a payment with both recent applications. However, this went to the wrong address.
39. On three occasions in September 2020 Mr A contacted the DVLA to complain that his refund had not arrived, that its doctor could not see him until October, and to query why he needed a urine test considering he had a test in January 2020. The DVLA explained the urine test was to test for cannabis use, whereas the test in January was to investigate alcohol use. There were no appointments with its doctor earlier than October. The refund of £90 was reissued in September 2020.
40. Mr A was supposed to see the DVLA’s doctor at the beginning of October 2020 but due to a Covid-19 test result not being back in time, it was rearranged for November 2020. The DVLA provided him with a 12-month licence in November 2020.
41. In considering Mr A’s complaint, the ICA identified that the impact of Covid-19 on the DVLA was such that it did add to some delay in dealing with Mr A’s case. However, the ICA also identified areas where the DVLA could have managed Mr A’s case better. It said the DVLA lost documents which delayed his application by two months. By cashing both of his payments and sending a refund to an old address, it meant the DVLA had £90 of Mr A’s money for six to seven weeks when it should not have.
42. Having carefully considered the information we have, we agree with the ICA’s conclusions. This does show in this case the DVLA had not, at some points in Mr A’s case, dealt with him promptly, helpfully, and within reasonable timescales. This is not in line with our principles.
The DVLA’s remedy
43. In recognition of the above mistakes the ICA recommended the DVLA offer a consolatory payment of £100 to Mr A.
44. Looking at our Principles for Remedy, they say, ‘Where maladministration or poor service has led to injustice or hardship, the public body responsible should take steps to provide an appropriate and proportionate remedy.’ Public bodies should aim to put people back in the position they would have been in, or if that is not possible, to compensate them appropriately.
45. Our severity of injustice scale shows what financial remedy we would expect a public body to consider in relation to an injustice caused by its mistakes. The financial remedy offered by the DVLA falls in level two of our scale, which could be where the person has experienced a relatively low impact, a degree of distress, or inconvenience.
46. The indications of failings in this case are the delays with Mr A’s June 2020 application and delays to him receiving his refund. We acknowledge that the process of getting his licence back was stressful and took longer than it could have, but the majority of the DVLA’s actions here are not indications of maladministration.
47. We can see these delays would have caused Mr A some stress. Based on the evidence we have seen, we cannot say the delays mentioned above directly led to him losing his job, or his relationship.
48. As such we consider a consolatory payment of £100 to be proportionate and appropriate for the injustice caused specifically by the indications of failings we have seen here.
49. We understand this is not the outcome Mr A would have wanted, and we apologise for any further stress it may cause.