4. Mr T complains that DVLA did not award an appropriate amount of financial remedy, for the stress he experienced, in regard to the overall handling of his renewal applications.
5. Mr T says the period he was unable to drive was extended by six months, causing difficulties for both him and his wife. Mr T also says that he has spent hours examining DVLA’s performance over an 18-month period, as a result.
6. By bringing his complaint to us, Mr T is seeking additional financial remedy.
7. In January 2022, DVLA received a third party notification which called into question Mr T’s fitness to drive. We understand this notification would usually have triggered DVLA to make enquiries about Mr’s continued fitness to drive. However, before these enquiries were made, Mr T submitted a licence application (in January 2022) stating that he had experienced two or more episodes of low blood sugar (hypoglycaemia) whilst awake in the last 12 months and had required help from another person. DVLA reviewed the application, on 25 May 2022, refused it under the medical standards for diabetes.
8. On 28 May, Mr T wrote to DVLA to advise that he may appeal the licencing decision. He also submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR). Mr T’s MP wrote to DVLA regarding Mr T’s dissatisfaction at having his licence revoked.
9. Mr T wrote again to DVLA in June, criticising the lack of acknowledgement to his previous letter and also not receiving an acknowledgment of receipt for his application. DVLA responded and said advising its licencing decision was correct. It explained it had revoked Mr T’s licence based on the evidence Mr T had provided about his medical condition.
10. Further emails were sent from Mr T and his MP to DVLA, between July and August. Mr T’s MP asked DVLA about the complaint raised by Mr T, regarding third party information being used by DVLA, to make its decision to revoke his licence, while the identity of the third party could not be revealed due to data protection.
11. DVLA sent Mr T a letter on 8 August, inviting him to reapply for his licence. DVLA meanwhile responded to Mr T’s MP on 1 September. (Further emails were sent between DVLA and Mr T’s MP between September and December). DVLA closed Mr T’s case on 10 October, due to receiving no application. Mr T reapplied for his licence on 8 November, with an accompanying covering letter including correspondence from his Specialist Diabetes Consultant. Meanwhile further emails were sent between DVLA, Mr T and his MP. On 21 November Mr T’s MP emailed DVLA. This was in regard Mr T’s comments concerning the lack of action taken over notifications with malicious intent.
12. Mr T questioned how DVLA would know if a notification was made maliciously, or not in his email to his MP dated 21 November. Mr T said, ‘my concern is that's all notifications sent to DVLA should only be acted upon if their content is verified, either by a professional or by the person being complained about, or by a number of other similar supporting notifications.’
13. A letter from DVLA was sent on the same date to Mr T’s MP, which included an apology for the service Mr T had received and an acknowledgement that his application dated 8 November had been misplaced. DVLA later made a consolatory payment of £100 (on 22 December 2022), due to the mishandling of Mr T’s application (dated 8 November).
14. Mr T’s further application was refused on 26 January 2023, after consideration of the medical questionnaire, in which the consultant ticked boxes indicating Mr T did not have adequate awareness of hypoglycaemia and the necessary precautions for safe driving.
15. Mr T complained on 27 January and challenged the decision, however DVLA confirmed on 6 February that the agency stood by its licencing decision and accepted medical information in good faith. Mr T submitted further medical information in March, including confirmation from a Senior Diabetes Consultant. Further emails were sent between DVLA and Mr T’s MP.
16. Mr T was then invited on 8 March, to reapply for his licence. The completed forms were received by DVLA on 15 March and reviewed. On 16 March Mr T was informed that his new licence had been issued.
17. DVLA responded to Mr T’s complaint on the same day, explaining the timescale for replies along with why the head of Drivers Medical could not respond to all correspondence. It also explained that it had not received material evidence, showing that the information provided by the consultant was incorrect.
18. Mr T asked for an ICA review on 19 March which the ICA received on 14 April. The ICA report was completed on 4 August 2023.
22. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint, we look at whether or not the outcome sought by the complainant, is one that we can achieve.
23. In this case, Mr T has told us that the consolatory payment of £100 does not adequately reflect the impact DVLA’s errors had on him.
24. It may be helpful if we explain at this point that our approach to financial remedy which are outlined in our document ‘Principles for Remedy’.
25. Remedying injustice and hardship is a key aspect of the Ombudsman’s work. Not all maladministration or poor service results in injustice or hardship, but where it does, our underlying principle is to ensure that the public body restores the complainant to the position they would have been in if the maladministration or poor service had not occurred. If that is not possible, the public body should compensate them appropriately. There is a range of appropriate responses to a complaint that has been upheld. These will include both financial and non-financial remedies. Financial compensation will not be appropriate in every case, but public bodies should not rule it out as a form of remedy for justified complaints. We understand that, for public bodies, there is often a balance between responding appropriately to people’s complaints and acting proportionately within available resources.
26. There are no automatic or routine remedies for injustice or hardship resulting from maladministration or poor service. However, when considering the level of appropriate financial compensation for inconvenience or distress, we expect organisations to take account of the following factors the impact on the individual – for example whether the events contributed to ill health or led to prolonged or aggravated injustice or hardship.
27. To help organisations with these considerations, we have published our own guidance on financial remedy. As part of this, we have published a severity of injustice scale. This scale allows us to ensure the recommendations we make are consistent and transparent for everyone who uses our service. The figures included in the scale represent the Ombudsman’s judgement about the sort of sums that are both appropriate and proportionate for us to recommend.
28. We do not have standard amounts that we suggest for specific failings as these may impact the person affected differently in different circumstances. We consider the individual facts of a case in deciding what level of financial payment is appropriate to recommend.
29. Our scale contains six different levels of injustice that a complaint could fall into, which increase in severity. Each level is then linked to a range of the financial amounts we would usually recommend in those circumstances. For example, A case will generally be level one if we consider the person affected has experienced a low impact injustice such as annoyance, frustration, worry or inconvenience. This would typically arise from a single (one-off) incidence of maladministration or service failure, where the effect on the person complaining is of short duration, and where there are no other adverse effects or ongoing wider impact. We will usually consider an apology to be an appropriate remedy for these cases.
30. 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 distress or inconvenience. In these cases, we consider that an apology is not suitable by itself and would usually recommend an additional financial remedy of between £100 and £450.
31. We should make clear that our scale is intended as a guide to help organisations make decisions on this matter. It is not prescriptive or mandatory. We are aware that organisations may have their own similar tools and, where appropriate, we would expect organisations to make use of such tools. In the case of DVLA, it relies on Department for Transport guidance which advises that any consolatory payments should be ‘modest, with a maximum in the low £hundreds except in truly exceptional circumstances’.
32. As we have explained, the purpose of providing a financial remedy is to put right the impact on the person making the complaint from any incidents of maladministration. For that reason, when looking at whether the DVLA’s offer of compensation was appropriate, we have first considered what it did, or did not, get wrong. It is only if we have seen evidence of maladministration that we have gone on to consider the impact this had on Mr T.
33. We should further make clear that we can look only for evidence of maladministration. We cannot, and have no, looked at concerns Mr T has raised about how, in his view, DVLA could and should operate differently. This is because we are not a regulator and have no say in the day to day running of an organisation. If Mr T has concerns about the way DVLA operates in general, he may wish to ask an MP to raise those concerns in Parliament. This is not something we can help him with.
34. In his complaint to us, Mr T listed 15 different heads of complaint. Although, for the reasons we have explained, we have not looked in detail at all of these, for the purposes of clarity, it may be helpful to comment on each one separately.
Lack of acknowledgements or responses to my applications
35. The evidence we have seen shows that DVLA has addressed this complaint. In January 2023, it wrote to Mr T’s MP and, as part of this, apologised for not acknowledging receipt of the application he made in November 2022. In recognition of this (and in recognition of delays in processing the application) DVLA paid him £100.
SAR was incomplete – did not mention some info about me
36. There are times where we can see that a complaint is best addressed elsewhere rather than though us. This is one of those occasions. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority for data protection and information rights. It is better placed than we are to take a view on whether DVLA responded appropriately to Mr T’s SAR. For that reason, if Mr T remains unhappy that a SAR has not been responded to properly, we suggest that he take his concerns to the ICO and ask that organisation to consider his concerns.
DVLA only ignores third party notifications if obviously malicious
37. It is not clear that this is a specific complaint, but it is something we feel it would be appropriate to comment on. The evidence shows that the DVLA did not act on a third party notification. Instead, It revoked Mr T’s licence on the basis of information he had presented himself.
38. We should add that, even if DVLA had acted on a third party notification, we would be unlikely to say this was inherently unreasonable. Part of DVLA’s stated role is to keep the right drivers on the road as safely as possible, In line with this, it has a responsibility to ensure that people permitted to drive are fit to do so. If it receives a suggestion (from any source) that this may not be the case, it has a duty to take that suggestion seriously until such time as the matter is resolved. That means making enquiries to establish whether the suggestion is or is not well-founded. Its role is not to determine whether the suggestion was made maliciously. It simply needs to determine whether the suggestion is correct.
DVLA ignored [a named specialist diabetic Nurse’s] medical info letter throughout; -
39. DVLA’s role is to conduct its own assessment of the person’s fitness to drive. Whilst it should consider any evidence submitted in support of the applicant, it must use its own discretion as to what weight, if any, it places on that evidence when balanced against evidence from other sources (including its own medical experts). In this case, the evidence shows it had considered the evidence Mr T presented and that is all we would have expected it to do. This is in line with our Principles of Good Administration – getting it right - decision making should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones, and balance the evidence appropriately.
Diabetes Leaflets not sent in 2019 - but this complaint withdrawn,
40. As the complaint has been withdrawn, there is nothing for us to say on this
DVLA ‘misplaced’ my 8 November application & attachments.
41. As we have explained, DVLA has already acknowledged and apologised for this error. Although the misplacement led to a delay in processing Mr T’s application, he has told us he no longer wishes to complain about this. For that reason, we have looked only at the inconvenience and frustration caused by not receiving the acknowledgement.
Promises to deal with case ‘as a priority’ means nothing unless quantified.
42. This appears to a statement on the way DVLA generally operates and, for reason explained elsewhere, is not something we can, or have, addressed in detail. In any event, the evidence shows that DVLA did give the application priority (when compared to other applications)
The ‘review’ offered in refusal letters is nothing of the sort!
43. The evidence shows that DVLA considered Mr T’s concerns carefully and responded to them (albeit we accept that he is unhappy with the response). For reasons we go on to explain, we would not have expected DVLA to have done more.
We cannot know what evidence they have based decision upon.
44. Both the DVLA and ICA provided detail on the evidence used to support the decision to revoke the licence. This is in line with our Principles of Good Administration – being open and accountable - Public bodies should be open and truthful when accounting for their decisions and actions. They should state their criteria for decision making and give reasons for their decisions.
Medical form questions re ‘awareness’ and ‘understanding. needs changing to ask for grading as per ‘Gold Score’ and requiring supportive evidence.
45. This a matter of opinion on a procedural matter and, for reasons we have explained, is not something for us to take a view on.
46. No point in making ‘apologies’ if nothing changes.
47. In principle, we agree with this point as we expect organisations to learn from complaints to help reduce the risk of similar errors occurring in future. However, we cannot apply this to the events related here. The only indication of maladministration we have found is the failure to acknowledge Mr T’s application. We have seen nothing to suggest that this was a systemic error or something that required significant change in DVLA’s process. As we have said, DVLA has already acknowledged and addressed this issue.
Compensation payment made is totally inadequate.
48. This is the heart of Mr T’s complaint. As we have explained, the only indication of maladministration we identified is the failure to acknowledge receipt of Mr T’s application. We have therefore looked at the impact this had on Mr T when deciding whether the remedy offered was appropriate.
49. Mr T says the errors delayed his ability to drive for six months. However, the evidence shows that the enquiries DVLA were necessary to ensure he was fit to drive. We appreciate that Mr T found these enquiries frustrating, but we cannot say this was the result of maladministration.
50. We have also noted Mr T’s comment that DVLA’s error led to him spending a significant amount of time analysing DVLA’s performance. We do not dispute this would have been a time-consuming exercise, but we cannot say Mr T was under any obligation to complete this task as a direct result of DVLA’s error. Ultimately, this was his choice and whilst, we recognise his efforts, this was not something we would, or could, expect DVLA to compensate him for.
51. We accept that DVLA made a mistake by not acknowledging Mr T’s application when it should have done, and this would no doubt have been frustrating for him. However, DVLA has apologised for this error and paid Mr T £100 in respect of the injustice this had caused him.
52. We should make clear that, in cases like this, we cannot say a remedy amount offered is unreasonable simply because we, or somebody else, may have arrived at a different figure when looking at the same evidence. We can look only at whether the organisation concerned followed a reasonable procedure when determining the remedy amount.
53. The evidence shows that, in arriving at this figure, both the DVLA and the ICA consulted guidance issued by the Department of Transport which recommends that “Any payments should be modest, with a maximum in the low £hundreds except in truly exceptional circumstances”. It also made reference to our guidance on financial remedy and assessed the impact as being level 2 on that scale (where a payment between £100 and £450 is usually deemed as appropriate). We can see from this that the figure offered is in line with both sets of guidance.
54. Under our Principles for Remedy – getting it right – we say ‘In putting right any injustice or hardship suffered as a result of maladministration or poor service, the public body should assess all the relevant circumstances in a balanced way. This means taking into account both objective evidence and more subjective views of the impact of the injustice or hardship’.
55. Under our Principles for Remedy – being customer focussed we expect organisations to consider all the circumstances of the case and try, wherever possible, to offer a remedy that is calculated fairly and impartially but is still appropriate.
56. We are satisfied DVLA has met our expectations in this instance.
Refusal reasons should only be based on factual information.
57. We agree with Mr T on this. However, the evidence shows that DVLA clearly explained its reasons for refusal and, in so doing, acted in line with our expectations.
DVLA services should be available to everyone in all formats.
58. This a matter of opinion on a procedural matter and, for reasons we have explained, is not something for us to take a view on.
DVLA should always investigate and corroborate any conflicting medical information.
59. We agree and, as we have explained elsewhere, the evidence shows that DVLA did this in Mr T’s case.
60. Whilst we fully understand that this has been a stressful time for Mr T, due to experiencing a period where he was unable to drive, we are satisfied that DVLA have appropriately remedied Mr T, for the poor service provided by DVLA.
61. Taking all of the above into account, we are satisfied that DVLA has done enough to put matters right and would not expect it to do more.
62. Although we understand that in Mr T’s view, he should have been compensated more, we consider that Mr T has been appropriately remedied in line with our scale.
63. For this reason, we have decided not to investigate this complaint further. We recognise this is unlikely to be the outcome Mr T was seeking when he approached our office, nonetheless, we thank him or bringing his concerns to our attention.
1. We have carefully considered Mr T’s complaint about the DVLA. We are very sorry to hear about the circumstances that led Mr T to approach us. We recognise the stress this caused Mr T and his wife, due to being unable to drive for a period of time.
2. Having looked carefully at the concerns Mr T has raised and listened to what he is seeking to achieve by bringing those concerns to our attention, we have decided to take no further action on the proportion of Mr T’s complaint. This is because we are satisfied DVLA has done enough to put right the impact any errors may have had on him.
3. We have explained to Mr T that we can only consider whether the amount of financial remedy awarded was proportionate, for his personal circumstances. We will explain the reasons for our decision in detail below.