The DVLA’s policy on age related registration is not transparent or publicly available
11. Our principles of good administration say public administration should be transparent and information should be handled as openly as the law allows. Public bodies should give people information and, if appropriate, advice that is clear, accurate, complete, relevant, and timely. While our principles expect organisations to be transparent, it also says it should be done as openly as the law allows.
12. Mr B has told us he had been frustrated by the lack of information available about the DVLA’s processes to help him understand their decision on his car registration. He said he spent many hours researching policy and process only to find it was undocumented or inaccessible.
13. The DVLA have told us their policy on registration applies to all circumstances including age related plates and registering imports. This information is available on the gov.uk website under ‘vehicle registration’. To be consistent between UK and imported vehicles, they have said there must be sufficient evidence to allow for the vehicle to retain or to be allocated an age related registration mark. They told us if there are uncertainties due to lack of evidence, then the vehicle will be allocated a DVLA Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and a Q registration mark. At the time Mr B applied for his registration, the process was visible on the website to say what information needed to be sent in. But not the policy including likely outcomes and the fact this would be a risk based decision. This would have been information about what the DVLA may decide to do, including issuing a Q plate.
14. We have seen internal documents from the DVLA which helps inform their decision registering imported vehicles from other jurisdictions. This information was not publicly available at the time of Mr B’s complaint.
15. The DVLA say it is not possible to publish policy documents for every country due to the vast number of different countries vehicles are imported from. The DVLA told us it believes making policy documents publicly available will lead to an increase in fraud. Attempts to deceive or mislead the DVLA is an ongoing issue. The documentation it has shared with us about making decisions on registrations of imported vehicles is protected under s31 (1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This section of the Act provides a prejudice based exemption which protects a variety of law enforcement and public authority interests. It can be used to protect information on a public authority’s systems which would make it more vulnerable to crime.
16. The DVLA has told us it has updated its website to provide more information to the public. There is now information about importing damaged or modified vehicles into the UK, which says the DVLA may give a Q plate registration in this circumstance. In response to Mr B’s case, the DVLA have told us it will again review the information it can make publicly available.
17. While we accept the full detail of the internal policies and guidance are protected by law, at the time Mr B made his application there was published information about the DVLA’s considerations and the possible outcomes to the registration process (including a Q plate). This was not open or accountable, as would be in line with the Ombudsman’s Principles. We find the DVLA’s lack of transparency at the time Mr B made his application to be maladministration.
The DVLA took too long corresponding with Mr B
18. Our principles expect organisations to be customer focused. They say organisations should meet their published service standards, or let customers know if they cannot. The DVLA’s standards says customers should receive their vehicle documentation in ten working days. Their complaint standard also sets a ten day response time.
19. Mr B has told us he found the DVLA’s ability to both respond to him and operate during lockdown had been poor. He said he avoided contact for several months during the pandemic in recognition of the challenges the DVLA faced.
20. Following the decision not to register Mr B’s car with an age appropriate plate in January 2020, the DVLA agreed to review new information Mr B had submitted in March 2020. He requested an update in September 2020 and in the absence of any response again, he submitted a complaint in October 2020. Mr B was then engaged in communication with the DVLA and shared further evidence throughout October and November 2020.
21. Mr B did not receive a response from the DVLA within ten days in March 2020. This is outside of the DVLA’s usual service standards. For context, it should be noted the nationwide lockdown in response to COVID-19 was announced on 23 March 2020. The DVLA’s offices are located in Wales, which had separate restrictions. This included Swansea, where the office is located, entering a local lockdown on 27 September 2020. These events take place around the time Mr B was contacting the DVLA. While these events were outside of the DVLA’s control, we would still expect them to communicate any departures from their service standards. We have seen evidence the DVLA’s website was updated in October and December 2020 to advise there may be additional delays in processing more complex applications. If the DVLA was unable to meet its service standards, it should have updated customers promptly to manage their expectations of its service.
22. We find the failure to update Mr B between March to October 2020 to be maladministration. Organisations should meet their published service standards, or let customers know if they cannot. This was not a customer focused approach to managing customer expectations.
The DVLA did not act in accordance with its own processes and the ICA Terms of Reference and has not written to Mr B with their response to the ICA report and any recommendations
23. The ICA’s Terms of Reference state:
‘When a delivery body does not agree to implement a recommendation, it should tell the ICA at draft report stage. If the delivery body and the ICA cannot resolve any difference of opinion the delivery body should tell the complainant and the ICA, in writing, after the ICA issues the final report. The delivery body must explain its reasons for not implementing the recommendation.’
24. The ICA’s report in March 2021 recommended, the DVLA provide a ‘nuanced’ account of their decision on Mr B’s case in its draft report, with answers to several of the questions the ICA posed. Mr B did not receive a response from the DVLA explaining why they could not implement this recommendation. The DVLA has confirmed this response was not provided to Mr B and recognises it should have been under the ICA’s Terms of Reference.
25. We find the DVLA’s failure to explain their reasons for not complying with the draft recommendation was not in line with the relevant standard and was maladministration.
Injustice
26. We will now consider the injustice Mr B was caused by the maladministration we have identified. When considering injustice, we look at whether the impact to Mr B could have been avoided or minimised if the maladministration had not taken place.
27. We have found maladministration in the lack of transparency in the DVLA’s registration processes around the time Mr B made his application. We accept Mr B would have experienced some frustration at not being able to find the policies and guidance the DVLA based their decision on, for him to understand their decision. However, we also note the decision would not have been any different for Mr B and, in all likelihood, he would always have limited information on the DVLA’s policies and guidance around vehicle registration.
28. We have found maladministration in the failure to update Mr B about the length of time the DVLA took to communicate with Mr B. Instead of the usual service standard of ten days, it was approximately seven months before the DVLA responded to the additional information he had provided about his car. We appreciate this delay took place during an unprecedented time and have noted above how Mr B’s contact with the DVLA came immediately before unknown developments (nationally and locally) in lockdown. Mr B has told us he was aware of this uncertainty and had not chased the DVLA sooner because of this unusual time. While we have found maladministration in the DVLA’s approach, we do not currently find Mr B was significantly impacted by the delay in response because he understood the reasons for it. We have seen Mr B chased the DVLA at the end of September, was in communication with them during October, and received a response in November 2020.
29. We have also identified maladministration in the DVLA not providing Mr B with an explanation as to why they could not follow the ICA’s recommendation for a ‘nuanced’ response. We accept Mr B would have experienced frustration in not receiving this explanation from the DVLA. We note the ICA’s recommendation required a meaningful piece of explanatory work from the DVLA. We therefore believe a response the ICA report in March 2021 should have reasonably been shared around June 2021. The frustration Mr B experienced as a result of this lasted just over 12 months.