3. Mr O says the Driver and Vehicle and Licensing Agency (DVLA) have not paid him sufficient remedy for failing to correct its vehicle record in a timely manner after he made contact in July 2023.
4. As a result, he has suffered a financial loss and has lost trust in DVLA
5. By bringing his complaint to us Mr O is seeking a financial remedy.
6. The background provides a brief overview of the case as both parties are aware of the events.
7. Mr O sold a car through a dealer in July 2023. The car had been the subject of a statutory off road notification (SORN) before this. An MOT certificate was issued for the car on 25 July, however, an application for a new logbook (V5C) was refused as a certificate of destruction (CoD – declaration issued by Authorised Treatment Facility (ATF) confirming a vehicle has been destroyed) was issued on 23 July. Mr O contacted DVLA in late July as the car had not been scrapped and was returned to the dealer. After contacting DVLA on several occasions in July and August Mr O made a subject access request (SAR) on 3 September asking for details of the CoD and sent a complaint the following day seeking compensation.
8. DVLA responded to the SAR on 22 September.
9. On 12 October DVLA wrote to Mr O, the letter did not address the issues of complaint it said for a new V5C to be issued he would need to send photographs of the car’s stamped-in vehicle identification number (VIN), VIN sticker and VIN plate.
10. On 25 October Mr O emailed DVLA to dispute the CoD and attached some photos but they did not contain the VIN so DVLA closed the case.
11. DVLA added an email to Mr O’s case on 3 November in which he threatened to take legal action to recover his losses. On the same day it requested the VIN details again.
12. DVLA reopened Mr O’s case on 13 December after he sent a letter and photos. It passed the case to the SAR team in error, then passed it back to the casework team who delayed contacting Mr O until 14 February 2024. DVLA emailed Mr O and again said it could not take his case further until it had the VIN images.
13. On 6 March Mr O emailed and said he had sent images of the VIN from the car’s windscreen. He also provided copies of a police call log and said the police had come out to confirm the car existed and that the VIN matched the record.
14. On 14 March DVLA wrote to Mr O to say it needed to inspect the car.
15. Following an inspection on 4 April DVLA removed the CoD and invited Mr O to retax it. Mr O emailed to say that the inspector had told him there was no stamped VIN and asked for photographic evidence. He also chased a response to his complaints.
16. On 18 April DVLA sent Mr O a copy of a photograph of the stamped in VIN.
19. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we consider DVLA has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.
20. Mr O claimed costs of £2217.10 from DVLA as he had to store his vehicle, pursue matters and attempted to initiate court action.
21. On 10 July DVLA responded to say it did not accept liability for costs but offered a consolatory payment of £200 for the delays in dealing with his telephone calls and correspondence. It also said it was open to him to pursue legal action and/or forward his outstanding concerns to an Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA).
22. Mr O accepted the £200 on 12 July but said the delays had cost him more than that and asked for an ICA review pending legal action.
23. The ICA report was issued on 29 January 2025, they found DVLA’s complaint handling to be poor, with a lack of response to his initial complaint and delays following subsequent submissions. The ICA said that the responses were poor and lacked explanation in the rejection of liability for costs Mr O said he had incurred because of DVLA’s alleged failings. While the ICA could see there was a three to four month delay caused by DVLA in resolving matters, Mr O had also contributed to the delay by not providing the required VIN images. The ICA did not accept the depreciation or legal costs should be borne by DVLA. With regard storage cost the ICA decided that rather than attempting to apportion storage cost it would be more sensible to accept Mr O had to pay more than he would have had to if the delays had not occurred. The ICA recommended a further consolatory payment of £250 for the delay in handling the case between December 2023 and February 2024, failings in the handling of complaints and contents of responses and failure to pass the complaint to the ICA in a timely manner.
24. Mr O says he agrees with the ICA’s findings apart from the decision about costs for storage, depreciation and botheration/effort in pursing the complaint. He says his complaint is purely about DVLA’s actions. He accepted the further £250 payment.
25. DVLA says it must close a vehicle’s record on receipt of a CoD. This is in line with guidance (November 2021) which says the CoD allows an ATF to notify DVLA when vehicles are depolluted or destroyed and allows them to issue a CoD, notifying DVLA to permanently close the vehicle record for that vehicle.
26. As DVLA received the CoD electronically from an ATF it cannot be held responsible for the incorrect reporting. As soon as Mr O made it aware the car had not been scrapped it asked Mr O to provide the evidence it needed to update its records.
27. Mr O says he had to store the vehicle for six months while he waited for DVLA to update its records.
28. Our principles say public bodies must comply with the law and have regard for the rights of those concerned. They should act according to their statutory powers and duties, and any other rules governing the service they provide. They should follow their own policy and procedural guidance, whether published or internal.
29. DVLA acknowledged responsibility for an initial delay of about one month in investigating Mr O’s vehicle record. There was a further delay of two months after the case was reopened in December. We are sorry to hear this happened.
30. This situation was caused by an error made by a third party. DVLA followed its process in requesting photos of the VIN to reinstate the record when it became aware of the problem. DVLA specified what information was needed but Mr O was unable to provide this. As with most government services the onus is on an applicant to provide information to enable the processing of documents. Mr O contacted DVLA on multiple occasions and he tried to provide the evidence it needed. We can see DVLA did what it could to help and sent out an inspector to gather the information it required.
31. While there were some delays in DVLA investigating the vehicle record, we cannot say for certain how much sooner it could have been reinstated vehicle record. This is because Mr O was unable to provide the information DVLA needed. Like the ICA we cannot say DVLA is wholly responsible for the costs or the conditions of storage. This is not to undermine the costs Mr O incurred or efforts expended in pursuing resolution. We consider the payment of £450, which is in line with level 2 of our severity of injustice scale that includes delays of up to a year, appropriately remedies the impact we consider the poor service he received from DVLA had. We appreciate this may not be the outcome Mr O was hoping for but hope we have been able to reassure him DVLA did what it could to put things right.
1. We have carefully considered Mr O’s complaint about DVLA. We are sorry to hear his vehicle record was closed and DVLA delayed acting on communications.
2. We have decided DVLA has already done enough to put right the impact of these events on Mr O.