Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency

4. Mr O complains that despite following all the requirements on the DVLA website, it has refused to change the registration of his V5C to motor caravan. He also complains that it will not tell him what he needs to do in order for his van to meet the requirements.

5. Mr O tells us that he remains frustrated by DVLA’s lack of clarity on the precise reasons for the refusal and what is needed to change. He also tells us that he would not have spent some of the money he did in an effort to ensure the van could be recognised as a motor caravan.

6. Mr O would like an apology from DVLA for the frustration it has caused him. He would also like it to be clear about what is needed from a self-build motor caravan to meet DVLA requirements and significantly increase the probability of an amendment of the body type on the V5C so that others do not have to experience what he has.

7. Mr O decided in 2019 that his old campervan needed to be replaced, and he purchased a replacement van of the same type he had before. He checked the guidance on the DVLA website to see what was required in the construction.

8. He worked on the van over a period of months and in early September 2020 sent in an application to DVLA to register it as a motor caravan. The request was rejected on 18 September 2020 and instead it was registered as a panel van with side windows.

9. Despite multiple communications from Mr O explaining how he had followed the guidance on the DVLA website, DVLA continued to refuse his application. He added additional graphics to his van, one that specifically said ’Campervan’ in large letters and a selection of other graphics. He had also asked his MP to write to DVLA, but neither the graphics nor his MP’s correspondence brought about a change in DVLA’s decision.

10. Mr O then approached the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA) in March 2021, which is the final stage in the DVLA complaint process. An investigation by the ICA led to Mr O’s complaint being partly upheld on the basis that the DVLA could have been more open about its change in the application of its policy on considering these types of requests. In para. 38 of its report it said, ‘[…] the joint view of the two ICAs is that the DVLA does indeed need to reconsider the adequacy of its published descriptors of the permanent features of a motor caravan in traffic. This would provide much greater clarity for customers, given that the guidance is the starting point for many convertors […]’.

Issue 1 - Vehicle failed to meet DVLA policy requirements

14. Mr O told us that he had followed the guidance on the DVLA website that laid out the criteria for the required internal features for motor caravans, as well the external ones listed at the time. He had also added additional windows, power inlets and outlets and added colours and graphics to the body of the vehicle. In his opinion, the vehicle was identifiable as a campervan.

15. In its response of 18 September 2020 to Mr O’s application to change the vehicle type, DVLA said that whilst Mr O had converted the interior of the vehicle in line with that expected of a motor caravan, the vehicle remained externally as it was originally constructed (a panel van). As a result, it could not be registered as a motor caravan but as a panel van with side windows.

16. Since 1973, DVLA has had the responsibility to record a vehicle body type for each registered vehicle. This is based on a descriptor of the external appearance of the vehicle as it appears in traffic and is not linked to the construction or use of the vehicle.

17. DVLA told us that the policy regarding the recorded ‘body type’ of a vehicle has always been that it appropriately reflects the vehicle’s external appearance in traffic and the policy applies to all vehicles. The most common request for a change of body type is that for a conversion to a motor caravan.

18. In the course of its investigations, the ICA was provided by DVLA with details of the outcomes of applications for a change in body type to motor caravan. ICA had received a number of complaints about applications for a change in body type being rejected and the bulk of these complaints appear to begin from applications made from June 2019 onward.

19. The ICA felt it was not appropriate to compare the two periods April/May 2019 and April/May 2020, given the DVLA had taken a decision to prioritise work involving NHS staff and keyworkers as a result of the pandemic. The ICA therefore sought figures on successful applications, i.e. where they had been approved by the DVLA, for a more comparable period: • January/February 2017 – 1769 • January/February 2018 – 1948 • January/February 2019 – 2447 • January/February 2020 – 133

20. It is evident from this latter set of data that there was a significant reduction in approved applications for changes to body type being issued and so we asked DVLA to explain the reasons for this. We particularly wanted to know if there had been a change in policy at DVLA in respect to how these applications were being considered.

21. DVLA told us that although a definition of ‘body type’ is not provided for in law, the DVLA’s policy developed in consultation with the police is that the most appropriate definition is one which accurately reflect the vehicle’s external appearance in traffic. This is a long-standing policy that has been in place for many years and assists the police and other enforcement agents in the identification of vehicles in use on the road. It has no other purpose and is not linked to how a vehicle is used, how it is insured or how it is driven.

22. It went on to tell us that in June 2019 it came to light that the body type guidance was not being applied in line with the policy and so changes were made in the way DVLA processed the applications in order to do so. DVLA made it very clear that the policy had not changed, simply that it was now being applied as originally intended.

23. This change involved the introduction of a ‘panel process’ where a DVLA clerk could check with a panel of experienced clerks whether a vehicle met the policy criteria. This change led to a significant reduction in the number of vehicles that met the ‘vehicle’s external appearance in traffic’ criteria to be deemed a campervan.

24. We consider that DVLA could reasonably have foreseen that there would be an impact due to the shift to a more stringent application, and that the impact would likely be significant. There is no evidence that DVLA proactively reacted to this inevitable impact and communicated this change to applicants. The ICA also took a similar view when it said that, ‘[…] the absence of any public announcement of the more stringent policy represents poor customer service’. We share this view.

25. Whilst there is no statutory duty to do so (as it was not a change in policy), we think it would have shown transparency and been customer focused to have done so. It would have helped manage expectations of those who had submitted or were about to submit applications, as well as those who were in the process of building or considering building a campervan with the intention of registering it as such. We consider this is a level of service that does not meet the standard expected of DVLA and other public bodies as set out in Our Principles of Good Administration, section ‘Being open and accountable’, which say:

26. ‘Policies and procedures should be clear and there must be accurate, complete and understandable information about the service’ and ‘People should be treated fairly and consistently, so that those in similar circumstances are dealt with in a similar way’.

27. Without being aware of the more stringent application of the body type policy and knowing that he had successfully applied for campervan registration on a previous vehicle with no difficulty, we consider on the balance of probabilities that Mr O would have had high expectations that his application for conversion would have been approved, especially as he told us he had followed the guidance diligently.

28. Whilst we cannot give any view on the balance of probabilities that Mr O would not have gone ahead with his application to specifically have campervan put on his V5C, had he been made aware of the change, he would at least have known that his application was going to be treated differently to the way he expected and what the reason for it was. It would have gone some way to manage his expectations. We accept, as DVLA pointed out in its letter to him of 18 September 2020, that Mr O can still use his vehicle for its intended purpose whether or not DVLA records the body type as motor caravan.

29. Our finding is that a lack of clear and timely communication about what was a significant change in the application of this policy is maladministration on the part of DVLA.

30. We then went on to consider whether the DVLA had applied the policy appropriately in Mr O’s case.

31. We previously asked DVLA to provide us with the internal guidance that a clerk dealing with these requests would use as part of our investigation in a similar complaint to the one Mr O has raised. It did so and we can see that it says that where evidence has been provided the application should be opened on the CASP (Casework & Specialist Processes) system. The VC (Vehicles Casework) team should then consider the evidence provided and make a decision. This guidance states:

32. ‘If you are satisfied the vehicle has been converted in such a way that its body type is better described as motor home/caravan and it meets the internal checklist the V5C can be keyed to amend the body type’.

33. It also adds that:

‘For consistency and understanding, it has been agreed that clerks will manage and make decisions on motorhome cases for example to assess and decide whether the body type can be changed to motorhomes or not, using their own judgement as per the guidance and that decision with then be final as agreed amongst the clerks. If a majority decision cannot be made, speak to the Team Lead to help make a decision.’

34. The guidance also provides links to photographs of vehicles that cannot be accepted as motorhomes in order that the clerk has a point of reference to work from when trying to make a determination.

35. Whilst there are clear descriptors in the form of images of what does not constitute a motorcaravan, it appears there are no clear descriptors in the form of images as to what does.

36. DVLA tells us that it made a decision that it needed to re-evaluate how effectively it was applying its policy on this matter and decided that it needed to apply it more stringently. It has been clear in explaining to us the need to reflect more closely the body type policy and the role it plays in helping the police. DVLA told us it also initiated changes that it says were meant to bring a more consistent approach to the determinations, including creating a new panel to help in decision making with an escalation to a Team Leader where a majority decision cannot be reached.

37. The policy itself is not in question, and neither is the decision as to how it was being applied. Our Principles of Good Administration say that public bodies ‘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.’ Although DVLA has changed how it is implementing its policy, it is within its rights to do so, as long as that new approach is communicated transparently and is applied fairly and consistently to DVLA customers. We have not seen anything to suggest that DVLA has acted with maladministration in following its policy and guidance, or that the decision in Mr O’s case was therefore maladministrative.

38. The previous, less stringent application of the policy means there will be vehicles on the road that are sporting the motor caravan entry on their V5C which would not have received that entry if they had applied for it after April 2019. Whilst we can understand that this is frustrating for Mr O and many like him, we do not see any evidence that the more stringent application of the policy amounts to maladministration.

Issue 2 – Additional graphics added

39. Mr O told us that after he received his refusal from DVLA, he added additional graphics to identify it as a motor caravan. This included graphics that displayed the word ‘Campervan’ in large letters on each side of the vehicle. When he presented his vehicle again the application was still refused on the same basis as before. He went on to add further graphics but again his submission was rejected.

40. We have not seen any evidence that DVLA said he should make specific changes to his vehicle. However, at this point Mr O had no information as to what DVLA determined a campervan must look like, so he was having to guess which modifications to make. As we will see in the next section, Mr O questioned DVLA on this ‘lack of guidance’ on further modifications.

41. Mr O chose to add some items that he thought would increase the chances of a decision in his favour but that proved not to be the case. Whilst we can appreciate there would have been an additional cost for those items and the final refusal would have frustrated him, we are satisfied from the evidence available to us that the decision to fit the additional items was Mr O’s and not as a result of him being misadvised by DVLA. This is because we have not seen anything to suggest Mr O was given any assurance that making these changes would result in an approved application, although we understand he was hopeful that this would resolve the matter and was ultimately very disappointed that his financial investment did not achieve what he was looking for.

Issue 3 – DVLA refused to provide guidance on what further modifications were required

42. Mr O told us DVLA would never make it clear in its communications what was required of him so that he could modify his van to meet the criteria for a campervan.

43. We asked DVLA about this in a previous investigation and it said that ‘it is not for it to advise customers on the way in which to convert their vehicles. When considering an application to amend a vehicle’s ‘body type’, the DVLA needs to be reactive, assessing what is presented in an application and in line with the policy’.

44. We can appreciate Mr O’s frustration at not being given details of what he needed to change to meet the criteria of the policy. He has said to us that he is aware of vehicles that look identical externally to his that have a V5C that says it is a motor home, and some that look less like a motorhome than his own vehicle but still have motor home on their V5C. We acknowledge, as does DVLA in its communications with ICA, that there will be vehicles presented to it after June 2019 that may well have had the body type changed to motor home prior to June 2019 that would no longer qualify to do so under the new application of the policy.

45. In considering whether DVLA has been open and transparent in response to Mr O’s request for further clarity, we do acknowledge what DVLA has said to Mr O, the ICA and PHSO:

‘It is a legal requirement for the keeper of a vehicle to notify the DVLA of any changes to their vehicle that would cause the details recorded on their V5C to become incorrect. Therefore, if it is considered that the vehicle’s external appearance has changed following a conversion the keeper must notify the DVLA who will then decide whether the change in external appearance requires a change in the information held on the vehicle record.’

46. It told us it does not want to discourage people from acting in line with their legal duty to submit their changes for consideration, and we can appreciate that. It also said that it did not want to discourage applicants from applying for a specific V5C entry, in this case campervan. We have seen nothing to suggest that being transparent about the requirement would reduce the number of people meeting their legal requirement to update the DVLA on any relevant matters, much less to the extent that it would reasonably negate its responsibility to provide clear information for its customers.

47. The evidence available suggests that by being more transparent about the requirements and the process, DVLA would be more likely to reduce the potential disappointment, frustration and confusion that comes with an application for a specific V5C entry being rejected. We acknowledge DVLA’s position that its function is to ‘register (and license) vehicles in accordance with the law and the policies in place as a result. At times, that may be to the detriment of the customer, but the DVLA must act in accordance with the law’.

48. We acknowledge that on 7 August 2020, just prior to Mr O’s submission to DVLA, DVLA did provide a more detailed list of external features. However, we consider this still unfairly leaves applicants guessing whether their vehicle construction meets the ‘looks like a campervan in traffic’ guidance before they submit their application.

49. In our view, the current provision of information does not reasonably balance any potential risks against DVLA’s responsibilities to its customers, as set out in Our Principles.

50. Those Principles say that an organisation is being customer focused when ‘Informing customers what they can expect’ from it and ‘being open and clear about policies and procedures’. Our view is that DVLA has not acted in line with Our Principles regarding communication, and that as a result Mr O has not been treated fairly, resulting in him being left confused, distressed and frustrated, which was avoidable.

51. In light of the above, we can see that there is maladministration in communication of the body type requirements by DVLA leading to an impact to Mr O that it has not yet put right. As such, we have made the following recommendations for remedy.

1. We have carefully considered the concerns Mr O raised as part of his complaint. We were sorry to hear of the problems he reported and appreciate he is still unhappy with the service he received from DVLA.

2. Having considered the evidence available to us, we have decided to partly uphold Mr O’s complaint about DVLA. Our view is that there is a lack of transparency in how DVLA communicates the requirements of what constitutes ‘a camper van in traffic’ and a lack of transparency in the process of how it makes its determinations on body type.

3. In our view, this is maladministration and has led to an impact on Mr O which has not yet been put right, and we are therefore making recommendations for remedy.