Compliance with payment
18. Mr D complains the DVLA had not adhered to the ICA’s recommendation to award him £400. The ICA recommended this amount because of the failings it found regarding the DVLA’s relicensing process.
19. Our Principles says organisations should communicate effectively and be open when accounting for its decisions and actions.
20. The DVLA issued a response to Mr D’s and Miss D’s complaints in late-January 2025. This response provided an analysis of what happened during the numerous licencing attempts. The DVLA offered Miss D a ‘poor service payment’ of £120 and provided the appropriate forms for Miss D to complete so it could administer the payment.
21. The DVLA then referred the complaint to the ICA. The ICA issued its report in late May and recommended the DVLA award a consolatory payment ‘totalling’ £400.
22. In mid-June, the DVLA sent Miss D an email further acknowledging the findings of the ICA report and accepted its recommendation of a consolatory payment of £400. Upon receiving Miss D’s bank details, the DVLA realised its previous communication in June was unclear.
23. A week or so later, the DVLA contacted Miss D. It apologised it if it was not clear in its previous email that the £400 included the previous £120 already paid before. The DVLA advised Miss D that it had arranged for her to receive a £280 payment. This, on top of the £120 previously paid, totalled £400.
24. Mr D contacted the ICA for further clarification on the amount. The ICA clarified that its intention was the total consolatory payment from DVLA should be £400.
25. The DVLA emailed Miss D in early-July and apologised for the error in its June email. It said it understood its wording led Miss D to believe she would have received a payment of £400 in addition to the £120 already paid. It acknowledged its error caused Miss D additional concern and it apologised for this. The DVLA said it would not be able to increase the payment.
26. The main issue here is the email from the DVLA to Miss D in June. Once the DVLA realised its error and lack of clarity, it promptly wrote to Miss D. It apologised for the error and clarified its position on the consolatory payment. Furthermore, following further correspondence from Miss D and Mr D about this error, the DVLA provided another explanation, acknowledged the concerns it would have caused, and apologised again.
27. We think the DVLA could have been clearer in its initial communication about the payment. However, we do not consider that its communication falls so far below the standard as to indicate a failing. Once it noticed what had happened, it communicated effectively and openly explaining the decision to Miss D, Mr D and the actions it was going to take.
28. We do recognise the DVLA could have been clearer, and we understand how the situation would have been confusing. On balance, we think the DVLA’s actions here are in line with our Principles and we will take no further action here.
Payment amount
29. Mr D says the amount recommended by the ICA does not accurately reflect the impact caused by DVLA’s action to Miss D. Mr D has told us he is seeking up to £12,000 to put right the impact of these events.
30. The DVLA says it considers consolatory payments by way of PHSO’s Severity of Injustice Scale (the Scale). This is supported by the principles set out in the Consolatory Payment guidance.
31. Section A4.14.3 of the Consolatory Payment guidance says when an organisation has caused injustice or hardship because of failings, it should provide a remedy. As far as reasonably possible, the organisation should restore the person to the position they would have been had the failing not happened.
32. Factors to include in considering the remedy (not exhaustive) are:
• whether someone has faced any additional costs as a result of the action or inaction of an organisation (for example, because of delays) • the circumstances of the person complaining, for example, whether the action or inaction of the organisation has caused knock-on effects or hardship.
33. Level 2 (£120 to £550) of Our Severity of Injustice Scale says the impact will arise from a relatively low impact failing, often resulting in a degree of distress or inconvenience. In these instances, it would likely be that an apology is not enough to put this impact right. It also says the impact caused would not affect a person’s day to day functioning, or their ability to live a normal life, from a period of one to two weeks to as long as six months.
34. It also includes cases where there is inconvenience which has more than a short-term or one-off impact, and short periods of financial or other hardship up to a month.
35. For a case to be considered at least at Level 4 of the Scale (£1,250 to £3,700), the impact has to be significant, lasting over three months or which is ongoing. Or where the distress has lasted over 12 months. This level includes financial, or other significant hardship, or other adverse impact on quality of life, lasting in excess of six months, and delays in handling of applications in excess of two years.
36. For context, we will outline a brief summary of the ICA’s report.
37. The ICA found that the DVLA did not fully explain the requirements for relicensing at key points in a timely manner, and that its laboratory added at least three months to the relicensing process. In terms of calculating how long the DVLA’s actions prevented Miss D from driving, it outlined the following:
• There was an avoidable period of at least three months after the urine test of 29 September 2021, and • There was a delay in the DVLA making the May 2023 decision to refuse Miss D’s reapplication. However, the ICA said this did not represent avoidable time kept off the road, as Miss D could drive under section 88 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (allowing someone to legally drive whilst the DVLA processes your licence renewal, provided you meet specific criteria).
38. The ICA also recognised a further delay in December 2023 (when a D1 form was not provided) but it was unsure why this delay occurred. A D1 form is an application form to apply, renew, or update a driving licence. Whilst the ICA was critical that the DVLA could have done more in its communication and explanations, the advice that a new application should arrive with a D1 is readily available.
39. The impact Miss D is claiming, as outlined in paragraph XX, is emotional, psychological and financial.
40. From the evidence we have seen, Mr D nor Miss D provided any evidence to support a claim of financial loss arising directly from the DVLA’s failings. This meant the ICA could not take this impact into account when it came to an appropriate consolatory figure.
41. In terms of the emotional and psychological impact to Miss D, we do not doubt the effect Mr D has said their interactions with the DVLA have had on Miss D. From reviewing the evidence Mr D has provided in the complaint, the process for numerous relicensing has been very lengthy. We do not underestimate the time spent and frustration experienced.
42. As outlined earlier, the ICA decided Miss D was prevented from driving for at least three months during one of the relicensing periods. The ICA noted Miss D was also prevented from driving due to legitimate restrictions on her driving, and the ‘unavoidably intrusive and protracted process of repetitive investigations’.
43. We also note the DVLA not providing timely and clear explanations at key points during the relicensing process caused frustration. The ICA also recognised that information on what to submit to DVLA had always been readily available.
44. It was difficult for the ICA to distinguish whether the hardship Miss D faced was a result of avoidable errors on DVLA’s part. It is clear Miss D faced a number of challenges during this time, but it is only the impact that arose as a result of failings which should be put right. This was all factored into the recommendation by the ICA.
45. The ICA noted that higher Severity of Injustice Scale levels will usually require clinical evidence. Again, from the evidence we have, Mr D nor Miss D did not provide any evidence to support their claim that the DVLA actions had a significant emotional and psychological impact on Miss D.
46. This is not to diminish the impact Miss D was experiencing during this process. We also recognise that the longer the period of negative interactions with the DVLA, during the lengthy relicensing processes, it is likely to have increased the impact she would have felt.
47. Given the length of the avoidable delay (at least three months) where the DVLA actions prevented Miss D from driving, it is the impact this period caused that the ICA would have considered in the consolatory payment. The ICA also considered the impact caused by the lack of timely explanations. Given this, it appears that Level 2 was a reasonable consideration and the ICA made an appropriate financial recommendation based on this. This is in line with Severity of Injustice Scale.
48. We understand why Mr D and Miss D are unhappy with this offer. We acknowledge the time and effort both have gone through trying to resolve this with the DVLA. We acknowledge the difficulty for Miss D in not being able to drive like she had been before, especially as it enabled her to live a ‘normal’ life and retain independence. The consolatory offer is only intended to put right the impact caused by the avoidable period it identified, as well as the communication issues.