Man compensated for long delay in reinstating his driving licence

What happened

DVLA took away Mr A's licence when it received medical information about his fitness to drive after he was diagnosed with early-onset dementia. DVLA did this under an urgent, 24-hour process rather than its standard medical investigation procedures. This meant DVLA made the decision based on incomplete information.

After this, Mr A's consultant sent DVLA more information indicating that he was fit to drive, and further investigations showed that this was the case. However, DVLA took nine months to reinstate Mr A's licence. During this period, DVLA's explanations about what had happened and what Mr A needed to do were unclear and confusing.

What we found

We partly upheld this complaint. DVLA's initial decision to take away, or revoke, Mr A's licence was reasonable. Although it did not have all the information about Mr A's condition when it revoked the licence, it had received medical information regarding his fitness to drive from a doctor. Under its procedures, it has to consider such information within 24 hours, in case there are urgent concerns about a person's fitness to drive. Therefore, DVLA made a decision based on the information it had to hand. However, it did not record this decision properly or explain it to Mr A.

DVLA received more information about Mr A's medical condition some weeks after the decision. This indicated that Mr A may well have been fit to drive when DVLA revoked his licence. However, if DVLA had acted appropriately, Mr A would not have avoided the entire nine-month period that he was without his licence because DVLA needed time to consider the information. Nevertheless, it still took seven months longer than it should have to reinstate the licence. We considered that, if DVLA is to operate a policy in which there is an understanding that a decision can be made based on incomplete information, this should be balanced by similarly urgent consideration of follow–up information that could challenge the revocation decision. DVLA should have prioritised Mr A's case on this basis.

The explanations and advice DVLA gave Mr A about the revocation were very poor and made it difficult for him and his doctor to follow it up. This contributed to the delay in reinstating Mr A's licence.

Putting it right

DVLA apologised to Mr A, and paid him compensation of £1,000 to recognise that its failures had caused him to be without a driving licence for much longer than should have been the case, and to acknowledge the distress and frustration it caused throughout the process.

We also recommended significant changes to DVLA's procedures. We said that DVLA should make sure that it explains and records these types of revocation decision clearly. It should also put in place a robust procedure for the subsequent consideration of further information after a driving licence is revoked under this 24-hour process.