Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

3. Mr J complains that DVLA took away (revoked) his licence after he had an unexplained fainting fit.

4. He also complains that DVLA delayed processing his application to reinstate his licence and its complaints handing took too long.

5. Mr J says having his licence revoked affected him physically and mentally for 12 months. He says it also affected him financially, causing stress.

6. Mr J would like DVLA to change its procedure and tell customers of its guidelines. Mr J would also like financial compensation.

7. Mr J is a HGV driver. In October 2020 Mr J had an unexplained episode of loss of consciousness and he reported this to DVLA. DVLA wrote to Mr J the next day and said he could either give up his licence, or consent to medical enquiries. Mr J chose to keep his licence while DVLA did medical enquiries into his fitness to drive.

8. DVLA wrote to Mr J’s GP on 3 November, asking them for information about the cause of the fainting fit. The GP responded on 4 January 2021. Although the GP was able to confirm the fit had happened, they could not explain why it had happened.

9. On 16 March 2021, DVLA wrote to Mr J to say it was revoking his licence to drive lorries (called a Group 2 licence) for 12 months and his licence to drive cars (a Group 1 licence) for six months. It said this started from the date of the incident. DVLA said in line with its guidance, holders of Group 2 licences who had experienced an unexplained loss of consciousness should not drive Group 2 vehicles for 12 months after the incident. It added that, if during that period the cause of the loss of consciousness was identified (and if it could be controlled to reduce the risk of it happening again) DVLA would consider an earlier re-application.

10. Shortly afterwards, DVLA invited Mr J to reapply for his Group 1 licence which he did at the end of March.

11. On 24 May 2021, Mr J wrote to DVLA and asked it to reconsider its decision on his Group 2 licence. He sent DVLA reports from a hospital consultant and a second GP that suggested the fainting fit had likely been a one-off incident. The second GP said that although the loss of consciousness was still unexplained, it had probably been a ‘reflex vasovagal episode’. This is when stimulation of the vagus nerve causes symptoms such as light-headedness, sweating and blurred vision. This can happen because of stress, pain, heat, having a bowel movement or even standing too long. In some cases, people can pass out.

12. Mr J said he had done his own research into this condition and discovered it was usually harmless and needed no treatment. He said DVLA’s own website made clear that people who had suffered this type of seizure should not drive Group 2 vehicles for three months (rather than 12) and there was no restriction on driving Group 1 vehicles.

13. On 21 June 2021, DVLA wrote to Mr J’s second GP for more information. The GP responded and repeated their earlier comments.

14. On 22 July 2021, DVLA invited Mr J to re-apply for his Group 2 licence. He sent his application by special delivery that was signed for on 28 July.

15. In October 2021, Mr J complained to DVLA about what had happened. He said there had been no good reason to revoke his licence and if DVLA had communicated better with his own medical professionals, this would not have happened. He said that when he re-applied for his Group 1 licence (March 2021) it had taken DVLA three months to process it, causing him unnecessary stress and a loss of car insurance money. He also complained about the delay in processing his Group 2 application which he had not yet received.

16. In October 2021, DVLA returned Mr J’s application to him as he had not completed several of the relevant boxes on the form. Mr J returned the completed form on 23 October 2021 and on 16 November, Mr J got his Group 2 licence back.

17. In March 2022, DVLA responded to Mr J’s complaint (after contact from Mr J’s MP). DVLA apologised for the delay in responding and explained that because it had received conflicting information from Mr J’s two GPs, it had needed to write to the second GP for more information. It said that once it had that information, it had acted quickly by inviting Mr J to re-apply for his Group 1 licence.

18. DVLA noted that Mr J had contacted its contact centre several times to chase up his Group 2 application and had not always been given the same explanation for the delay. It apologised for this but explained that several factors (not least, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic) had affected its ability to process applications as quickly as it would have liked. DVLA accepted its service had not been the best and offered to pay Mr J £100 in recognition of this.

19. Mr J escalated his concerns to the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA), the final stage of DVLA’s complaint process. In June 2022, the ICA issued its final decision and partly upheld Mr J’s complaint. The ICA said DVLA had acted reasonably when Mr J first reported the fainting incident. It said DVLA had made appropriate enquiries with Mr J’s GP about the cause of the seizure and then when no cause was found, it took appropriate action in revoking Mr J’s licence(s).

20. The ICA was satisfied DVLA had also responded quickly to Mr J’s application for his Group 1 Licence. It said that upon receipt of the application, DVLA had requested medical information from Mr J’s GP and this had not been received until 28 May 2021. It also noted that at the time DVLA’s ability to process applications as quickly as it may have liked was still being affected by the pandemic.

21. The ICA noted Mr J’s May 2021 medical evidence of his fitness to drive. It said it was satisfied DVLA had treated this evidence appropriately by making enquiries to Mr J’s second GP (to resolve the conflicting information between the two GPs).

22. The ICA noted that DVLA had taken longer than expected to process Mr J’s Group 2 application (it said that as an employed driver DVLA should have prioritised his application). The ICA noted the delay was mainly due to ongoing pandemic-related pressures (which were not unique to Mr J’s case) but it recommended that DVLA pay Mr J £100 in recognition of any inconvenience this may have caused.

23. The ICA noted DVLA’s delay in responding to Mr J’s complaint but was satisfied that by accepting the delay and paying Mr J £100, it had done enough to put things right.

26. To help put the complaint and our decision in context, it may be helpful to explain DVLA’s role and responsibilities.

27. DVLA’s role is to maintain the registration and licencing of drivers in Great Britain. This is, in part, to make sure that drivers are legally allowed and safe to be on the road.

28. DVLA carries out fitness to drive assessments. It says that anyone who holds a driving licence must tell DVLA if they develop a notifiable medical condition or disability (anything that could affect your ability to drive safely). An example is fainting. DVLA says that anyone who has experienced fainting should ask their doctor if this is likely to affect their driving. If so, they should report it to DVLA.

29. DVLA publishes advice for medical professionals to follow when assessing drivers with neurological disorders (such as fainting). It says that in the case of a one-off episode of fainting, the need to notify will depend on whether the person was standing or sitting at the time. It will also depend on whether they hold a Group 1 or Group 2 licence.

30. In the case of a typical fainting episode, a Group 1 licence holder does not need to report the incident (or stop driving) if there is an ‘avoidable trigger’ that will not happen while driving. Otherwise, they must not drive until their annual risk of recurrence (the episode happening again) has been assessed as being below 20%. A Group 2 licence holder must always notify DVLA of the incident. If the incident happened while the person was sitting, they must not drive for three months and will need investigation for an identifiable and/or treatable cause.

31. In the case of an unexplained fainting episode, the person must always report the incident to DVLA. DVLA say that in cases where no cause is identified, it will revoke the person’s licence for either six months (Group 1 licence holders) or 12 months (Group 2 licence holders).

License being revoked

32. When DVLA review a case, it applies the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (section 92) by a range of detailed medical standards set out in their publication ‘Assessing Fitness to Drive – a Guide for Medical Professionals’. These are the standards that individuals must meet to be seen as fit to drive and are available on its website.

33. As well as reflecting the legislative requirements, the guidelines follow advice from six Honorary Medical Advisory Panels to the Secretary of State (the Panels). Each Panel consists of experts in the relevant medical area and includes both DVLA and lay people (people who are not experts or professionals in that field). The fitness standards are continually reviewed and updated with developments in medicine and the law.

34. The DVLA’s Drivers’ Medical Group (DM) does investigations into health conditions reported to the agency, to check if the driver is medically safe to drive. In the investigation, evidence is taken firstly from the driver, using a disability-specific form. If the completed form gives the DVLA cause for concern, the driver may have their licence revoked or DVLA may ask for more evidence.

35. Mr J had reported a fainting fit but unfortunately had been unable to give DVLA a reason for it. In line with DVLA’s guidance this meant Mr J’s ability to drive safely was considered. DVLA did not take the licence away automatically but instead made enquiries with Mr J’s GP. It was only when the GP was unable to give an explanation for the fainting fit that DVLA revoked Mr J’s licence. We cannot say this was unreasonable.

36. Under our ‘Principles of Good Administration’, to get it right we expect organisations to act in line with their duties. We also expect them to take account of all relevant information when making decisions. We are satisfied that by making enquiries with Mr J’s GP before deciding the fainting episode was unexplained (and then revoking the licence) DVLA was acting in line with our Principles.

37. We have noted Mr J’s comments that the evidence suggested he was fit to drive all along. DVLA did not know this until his second GP confirmed it (and even then, the diagnosis was a probability). For that reason, we cannot say that DVLA did anything wrong.

Delay in processing applications

38. The evidence shows that Mr J waited about three months for his Group 1 licence (March to June 2021). While this is longer than he may have expected (the current waiting time is said to be about four weeks) we cannot say this was unreasonable.

39. Our ‘Principles of Good Administration’ say to be customer focussed organisations should deal with people quickly and within reasonable timescales. We know this may not always be as quickly as the customer would like. While this is unfortunate, it is not always something we can say the organisation should be held responsible for.

40. In this case, and as the ICA found, the DVLA’s ability to work as quickly as it would have liked had been significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We have seen evidence that many of DVLA’s staff were working from home and its usual service had been severely disrupted, not least by a significantly increased level of demand for its service. We also note that DVLA needed to get additional medical information about Mr J and it did not get this as quickly as it may have liked. Given the circumstances, although we accept the time taken to process the application was longer than Mr J would have liked and this would have been frustrating for him, we cannot say DVLA failed to give a good service.

41. We have also looked carefully at DVLA’s processing of Mr J’s Group 2 application. DVLA again faced significant pressures to process applications quickly. We have seen evidence that DVLA warned Mr J it may take longer (it told him several times that its usual waiting time was around ten weeks). We note that because Mr J needed his licence for work, DVLA should likely have prioritised his application. We cannot say what, if any, difference this would have made to his waiting time. We must also note that part of the delay was because Mr J had not completed the form correctly. We accept he put this right quickly, but we cannot say that had DVLA prioritised his application, this error would have been seen earlier. We cannot say the processing of Mr J’s Group 2 licence shows any signs of a failing.

42. We are pleased to see that despite this DVLA recognised the delay had been inconvenient for Mr J and offered to pay him £100. It also explained the steps it was taking to improve its processes and procedures.

43. Our ‘Principles of Good Administration’ expect organisations to continually improve by learning from the feedback they get, both positive and negative. We are satisfied that DVLA has acted in line with our Principles and shown it will learn from this and try to improve.

DVLA’s complaint handling

44. The evidence shows DVLA took four months to respond to Mr J’s complaint (October 2021 to March 2022). DVLA has already accepted this was too long. We need to look at the impact this had on Mr J and whether DVLA has done enough to try to put things right for him.

45. We should begin by saying we have seen no evidence that the complaint handling had an impact on the processing of the licences.

46. This does not mean Mr J did not face an injustice (hardship) because of the delay. He raised concerns with DVLA and had a reasonable expectation that DVLA would respond to those concerns quickly. The fact it did not would no doubt have been frustrating for him.

47. In these circumstances, we expect organisations to – put things right where poor service has led to injustice. Our Principles say organisations should try to offer a remedy that returns the complainant to the position they were in before.

48. To help us decide on an appropriate amount of financial compensation we use our severity of injustice scale (our scale).

49. Our scale allows us to make sure our recommendations are consistent and transparent for everyone who uses our service. The amounts included in the scale represent our judgement on what we find to be appropriate and fair. We do not have standard amounts that we suggest for specific failings because people are affected in different ways. We consider the individual facts of a case in deciding what level of financial compensation is appropriate to recommend.

50. The scale has six different levels of injustice which increase in severity. Each level is linked to a range of financial compensation that we think would put right what has gone wrong.

51. A level two injustice will typically arise when what has gone wrong has had a relatively low impact on the person affected. This will often result in a degree of inconvenience. In these cases, we consider that an apology is not suitable by itself.

52. DVLA offered to pay Mr J £100 in recognition of the injustice he had experienced because of its complaint handling. In our view this is reasonable and falls in line with level two on our scale.

Summary

53. While we understand Mr J’s frustration, we have not seen that DVLA did anything wrong. DVLA had a situation where someone had experienced an unexplained fainting fit and if repeated, it could present risk to that individual and/or other road users.

54. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for DVLA to show caution. Once it had received the necessary medical information, it revaluated the situation and decided Mr J was safe to drive. We would not have expected DVLA to have done more.

55. With the time taken to issue the Group 2 licence, a combination of factors contributed to this. Taking everything into account, we can see that although the reissue of the licence was delayed there were reasons for this. The pandemic had an impact and was outside of DVLA’s control.

56. Although DVLA took too long to deal with Mr J’s complaint, we are satisfied it has done enough to put this right for him.

57. We realise this is unlikely to be the outcome Mr J was looking for when he came us. We hope we have clearly explained the reasons for our decision. We thank Mr J for bringing his concerns to our attention.

1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Mr J’s complaint about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). We recognise the stress Mr J has experienced because of the matters he has complained about.

2. We do not think DVLA did anything seriously wrong. We realise this is unlikely to be the outcome Mr J was hoping for. We hope the paragraphs below explain the careful consideration we have given to the complaint.