Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

6. Mr A complains that between January 2021 and January 2022, the DVLA:

• did not allow him to register his V5C at his business address and requested inappropriate evidence before it would consider allowing this in the future • repeatedly requested he provide a different address to register his V5C • failed to provide the legislation it had relied on in making this decision • discriminated and showed bias against him due to his autism and living situation • made several untrue statements about his situation and accused him of lying.

7. He says the DVLA’s actions caused an incredible amount of stress, anxiety and embarrassment, and he spent lots of time trying to deal with it. He says that as the DVLA would not allow him to pay road tax via direct debit, he had to pay it six months in advance. He says the DVLA’s requests for photos of his living space were an invasion of his privacy and that it was dismissive of his autism diagnosis.

8. In terms of his business, he has explained part of it is a mail-forwarding and mail-handling business, which means he rents his business address to people who do not have their own address. As the DVLA decided not to allow him to use his address to register his V5C, he says he has lost clients who previously also used it to register, resulting in financial loss.

9. He has also expressed his concern about how the DVLA’s position might have affected, and continue to affect, homeless and temporarily homeless people.

10. He would like the DVLA to apologise and revisit its decision not to allow him to register his V5C at his business address. He also wants the DVLA to issue guidance on the use of maildrop addresses and under what circumstances it would approve their use.

11. In late 2020 and early 2021, Mr A applied to register his vehicle at the same address as he had used before.

12. On 29 January 2021, the DVLA rejected this application. It said it needed an address where it or the police could easily contact him, but the address he tried to use was not suitable because it was for a maildrop service.

13. Mr A responded by appealing this decision. He explained the maildrop address was where he lived and worked.

14. The DVLA again rejected his application on 3 February 2021, stating it was not satisfied with the address used, as its system recognised it as a non-residential address. It asked again for a different address at which he could register his vehicle.

15. On the same day, Mr A issued a complaint about the matter, to which the DVLA responded on 18 February 2021. It said the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (the Act) empowers the DVLA to refuse to issue new registration documents if it is not satisfied with the address used.

16. Mr A escalated his complaint and requested an apology and compensation.

17. The DVLA replied, confirming it would not change its decision. It said Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 (the Regulations) say the DVLA can refuse to issue a V5C if it is not satisfied with the address given. It advised it would reject any further application with the same address but would consider supporting evidence such as a council tax bill to prove he lived there.

18. Mr A remained dissatisfied with the DVLA’s stance and requested the case be escalated to the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA).

19. On 15 April 2021, the DVLA granted Mr A a V5C on an emergency basis but told him that he must inform it when his domestic arrangements changed.

20. It followed this up some months later to ask him to reapply with an acceptable residential address or confirm his circumstances had not changed.

21. In his response, Mr A confirmed his circumstances remained the same and requested the registration address remain the same.

22. On 15 November 2021, the DVLA wrote to Mr A to say it had withdrawn registration of his vehicle for the address he had provided. Mr A raised a complaint on the same day. He confirmed he had no alternative address and believed he was being discriminated against.

23. The DVLA then wrote to Mr A asking him to provide additional evidence demonstrating this address was in fact his home, such as domestic utility bills, domestic council tax bills, photographs of any separate living space such as a bedroom or bathroom and any other evidence he may have.

24. Mr A responded to say he believed this evidence was intrusive, unnecessary and amounted to an invasion of privacy. He asked again for an ICA review and for the legislation allowing the DVLA to request photos of his bed.

25. The ICA received the case in December and issued its response in January 2022. It did not uphold his complaint. Though sympathetic to his circumstances, the ICA felt the DVLA had acted reasonably, flexibly and within its own legislation.

28. Before we decide whether we should investigate a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation concerned has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. If what happened fell far short of what should have happened, we call this a failing. When we see signs of a failing, we look at whether that failing had a negative effect on the person in question. If we think it did, we go on to consider what, if anything, the organisation has done to try to put things right.

Handling of the V5C application

29. The Act states the DVLA will register a vehicle if it believes it has received the necessary ‘particulars’. In this context, the particulars are the registration applicant’s details and any accompanying evidence the DVLA may believe is necessary.

30. This is further discussed in paragraph 15 of the Regulations. That paragraph says the DVLA will only issue a new registration document when it is satisfied with the particulars presented. If it is not satisfied, it is the responsibility of the keeper of the vehicle to satisfy the requirements through the ‘production of…other sufficient evidence’. The Regulations go on to say that, where the DVLA is not satisfied by the particulars, it may refuse to issue any new registration documents.

31. Our principles set out how we expect organisations to act. To get it right, we expect organisations to act according to their statutory powers and duties. When making decisions, we expect organisations to take account of all relevant considerations and balance evidence appropriately.

32. Mr A has repeatedly told the DVLA that he resides at the address he used when trying to register his V5C. The DVLA rejected this application, as its system highlighted this address as a non-residential address, and it was not satisfied he was living there. On several occasions during its correspondence, it asked Mr A to provide an alternative address. In turn, Mr A repeatedly said this was not possible as he did not have an alternative address.

33. It later went on to request he provide further information and gave examples of what it would deem acceptable. Mr A refused to comply with this request as he believed it to be unnecessary and an extreme invasion of his privacy.

34. As set out by both the Act and the Regulations, the DVLA is empowered to refuse to provide registration documents if it is not satisfied with the information available to it. If that proves to be the case, it becomes the applicant’s responsibility to satisfy the DVLA by providing any evidence they can to support their application.

35. The DVLA’s general stance on maildrop services is that it will not allow them to be registered for vehicles. As they are usually non-domestic addresses, neither it nor the police would be able to locate the licence holder in an emergency.

36. Over the course of the disagreement, Mr A provided copies of his lease and a letter from his local council asking him to update the information on the electoral register. The DVLA was not satisfied by either document. It explained the lease would only show a business interest, so the letter was not sufficient proof he lived at the property. The DVLA explained its further refusal to Mr A on each occasion. We cannot see that Mr A provided any fresh evidence beyond this over the remaining review period related to the complaint.

37. Mr A says he is living at his work address. This address is used as a maildrop service and not a standard domestic property. Despite the DVLA requesting an alternative address several times, we understand he had none to provide. Our role is to consider whether the DVLA acted appropriately and in line with its legislation. It is not for us to determine whether Mr A actually lives at the property in question.

38. As set out, the DVLA will only issue registration documents when it is satisfied with the evidence and particulars available. With Mr A’s application, that has not proved to be the case. As set out by the DVLA and the ICA, it is best practice not to allow applicants to use maildrop services to register vehicles.

39. The DVLA later acknowledged Mr A’s situation is not usual and said it was willing to decide based on exceptional circumstances. To do so, it requested further evidence Mr A believes is unnecessary and an invasion of his privacy.

40. Ultimately, the DVLA needed to be satisfied with the particulars, including that Mr A provide a residential address. Its systems showed the address to be non-residential, so when Mr A insisted he was living there, it was appropriate to request further evidence. It would be highly unusual for the DVLA to simply accept his word this was a residential address when its systems showed otherwise - Mr A himself agreed it was a maildrop address. These addresses tend to be physical premises used by an agency, and there can be numerous people using the same address, so the DVLA’s concerns are understandable.

41. As set out by our principles, further evidence was necessary for the DVLA to take account of all relevant considerations and balance the evidence appropriately before reaching its decision.

42. Regarding the legislation the DVLA relied on to make its decisions, we can see it did make Mr A aware of both the Act and the Regulations in its correspondence. The ICA also referenced both pieces of legislation and went into detail about how they apply to his situation. We accept that legislation can be difficult to read but consider the DVLA appropriately highlighted and explained the relevant sections in its correspondence with Mr A.

43. We understand Mr A disagrees with the DVLA’s stance, finds its evidence request intrusive and feels frustrated by its repeated requests for an alternative address. However, we do not consider this to be a good reason for the DVLA to have done anything differently. We are also aware Mr A’s situation is unusual and is a sensitive matter for him, so the DVLA’s decision and evidence request may have compounded these feelings. We are sorry for the situation he has found himself in, and we understand it has been difficult for him.

DVLA comments

44. Our principles say that, in their decision-making, organisations should take account of all relevant considerations and balance the evidence appropriately.

45. Mr A is unhappy with some statements made by staff at the DVLA and the accusations that he is a liar in internal communications.

46. We can appreciate it would be upsetting to read statements outlining a belief you have not been truthful. We can also understand it would be equally upsetting to read statements you believe to be untrue about yourself in internal communications between staff at the DVLA. We acknowledge this would have been frustrating and distressing for Mr A.

47. Having reviewed the communications in question, we see they largely relate to an internal debate between policy and operational staff about how best to respond to Mr A’s request. As established, members of staff at the DVLA state in emails they believe he is lying and that they do not believe he is living at the address as claimed. In other internal emails, staff say they believe the DVLA should give Mr A the opportunity to prove he is telling the truth.

48. We believe the internal communications from staff serve as an extension to the DVLA’s overall decisions. It ultimately did not believe he was living at the address listed in his application (as we have already set out), so it rejected it. It did not then cut ties and say this was its final action. Instead, it gave Mr A the opportunity to provide further evidence to prove he lived there.

49. This action may not have been taken without the internal debate set out in those communications. As a result, the DVLA took all available evidence into account and balanced this appropriately before reaching a decision.

50. Although Mr A was upset, perhaps understandably, at the content of these emails, we do not consider anything in them constitutes a failing. Staff must be allowed to speak freely and share their opinion on matters to help get to the right conclusion.

Discrimination

51. Only a court of law can make a finding that discrimination has occurred. We explained this to Mr A at the beginning of our process, and he understood this may eventually prove to be the case. Given this is the only way to get the ruling of discrimination he wants, we have to say it is reasonable for him to pursue this matter legally.

52. If Mr A wishes to pursue a finding of discrimination against the DVLA for its handling of his case, he would have to do so via the courts. We are not the correct organisation through which to pursue this, and Mr A would need to seek independent legal advice. We have therefore decided not to consider this matter further.

1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).

2. We recognise how frustrating Mr A’s dealings with the DVLA were. We appreciate his living situation is sensitive and he found the DVLA’s approach and requests to be distressing and unhelpful. We also understand he says his business has struggled as a result, and we can appreciate the added concern this caused.

3. Based on what we have seen, we have found no signs the DVLA was wrong to refuse Mr A’s vehicle log book (V5C) application or acted inappropriately in requesting evidence.

4. We have also found no signs the DVLA acted incorrectly in asking Mr A to provide a different address. We have not seen that the DVLA failed to show him the legislation it relied upon to make its decisions or that staff made false comments about Mr A regarding the comments Mr A found during his subject access request.

5. We have not addressed his concern that the DVLA discriminated and showed bias against him. Only a court of law can find that discrimination has occurred, so we cannot address this in the way Mr A wanted us to.