Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency

3. Mr R complains the DVSA incorrectly removed his authority as a motorcycle approved training body (ATB) for two months and failed to follow procedure by not issuing Mr R a warning before it removed his ATB authorisation.

4. Mr R complains about the amount of compensation recommended by the DVSA and that it deducted tax from this. He also states the DVSA have been biased and discriminatory towards him and treated him unfairly.

5. Mr R states he had to use his pension to fund building works relying upon his business to fund the outstanding amount. He has been medicated for depression and sleep apnea, and this has had a terrible effect upon him and his family.

6. Mr R wants us to fully investigate the decision process used by the DVSA and review the amount of compensation the DVSA awarded him.

7. At the start of June 2023 the DVSA revoked Mr R’s access to the MMA 8. In June 2023 the DVSA informed Mr R that action was being considered against his ATB that could include closure and removal.

9. In July 2023 Mr R’s ATB authorisation was withdrawn, and he was informed that he could appeal.

10. In August 2023 the DVSA recommended that Mr R should be allowed to reapply for his ATB authorisation, subject to a meeting.

11. In September 2023 following the meeting Mr R’s was invited to reapply for his ATB authorisation. Shortly after Mr R was able to resume instructing.

12. The DVSA responded to a complaint raised by Mr R in November 2023.

13. In early December 2023 the DVSA issued a further response to Mr R’s complaint.

14. Later in December 2023 Mr R was referred to the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA)

15. The ICA concluded its investigation towards the end of March 2025.

16. We received Mr R’s complaint in April 2025.

Mr R complains the DVSA incorrectly removed his authority as a motorcycle approved training body (ATB) for two months and failed to follow procedure by not issuing Mr R a warning before it removed his ATB authorisation.

19. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen.

20. Mr R told us the DVSA removed his authority as an ATB because of information it received from a rival ATB. We have seen that the DVSA removed Mr R’s authority because it believed he had failed to comply with the trainee-to-instructor ratio of 2:1 on several occasions. This requirement is set out in the guidance ‘Set up and run a motorcycle approved training body (ATB)’, which explains the conditions ATBs must meet when delivering compulsory basic training (CBT). We note that the DVSA considered information from another ATB when reaching its decision. However, it also relied on evidence gathered during onsite visits to Mr R’s training area.

21. As outlined in the Independent Complaints Assessor’s investigation, the DVSA later reconsidered its decision to remove Mr R’s authority as an ATB after he attended a meeting to discuss the concerns about the training ratio. During this meeting the DVSA also discussed Mr R’s relationship with other ATBs in an attempt to address the disputes that had arisen.

22. Mr R’s authority as an ATB was restored in September 2023. The DVSA explained that Mr r should have been issued with a written warning before his authority was removed. We can see the DVSA recognised that it had not followed its own process correctly at the time of the original decision. The DVSA therefore reconsidered the decision, reinstated Mr R’s authority, and offered him compensation. We discuss the compensation further below. Overall, we have seen that the DVSA identified where its process had not been followed and took steps to put this right.

23. As part of its process, the DVSA guidance ‘Running a motorcycle training school’ explains the steps the CBT Registrar should normally take when concerns arise. This includes:

12.2 DVSA will write to the ATB and instructor (if required) to explain the reasons for the CBT Registrar’s concern and ask for their written representations as to why they should remain on the register. You will be given a period of up to 28 days to submit their representations. This must be done in writing or by email. A shorter period may be applied at the CBT Registrar’s discretion.

12.5 After the representations period has elapsed, the CBT Registrar will consider the representations submitted and make his decision. The CBT Registrar can consider a range of options including closure of an ATB, and removal of instructors from the register. Action could also include placing an ATB under special measures. DVSA will write to the ATB and instructor (if required) to notify them of the decision.

24. We consider the DVSA acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration, particularly acting fairly and proportionately. This principle means public bodies should act reasonably, follow their procedures, and take proportionate action when imposing restrictions or penalties. In this case, the DVSA recognised that its original process had not been fully followed, reviewed the decision, reinstated Mr R’s ATB status, and offered compensation. These steps show the DVSA attempted to address the issue once it identified the error.

Mr R complains about the amount of compensation recommended by the DVSA and that it deduced tax from this.

25. Mr R tells us that the DVSA’s offer of compensation, and the subsequent recommendations made by the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA), did not go far enough to put things right. In particular, he says his income continued to be affected for around three months after his ATB authority was reinstated, as he needed time to rebuild his customer base.

26. The ICA reviewed the DVSA’s initial offer of £9,539.32 for the loss of income caused by Mr R having his ATB authority removed for around two months.

27. In its report, the ICA explained it had some reservations about the DVSA’s approach to calculating the loss of income. In particular, the ICA considered that limiting the loss to the two-month closure period was overly simplistic. The ICA noted that motorcycle training bodies operate on sequential training cycles and that restoring an ATB’s registration does not immediately allow a business to return to its previous level of income.

28. The ICA also found Mr R’s account of reputational damage persuasive. It accepted that the removal of his ATB authority may have affected customer confidence and delayed his ability to rebuild his customer base. The ICA therefore considered it reasonable that the financial impact extended beyond the period in which the ATB authority had been removed.

29. In reaching its recommendation, the ICA developed an alternative method to estimate the loss of income. This involved applying a 48.4% uplift to Mr R’s monthly income from 2022 for the affected period between August and December 2023, with a cap of £11,000 per month. The ICA then subtracted Mr R’s actual income for that period and applied a 50% deduction to reflect operating costs. Using this approach, the ICA calculated an index figure of £14,951.75.

30. The ICA recommended that this figure should be used as the basis for the compensation payment, with the DVSA deducting any relevant liabilities to calculate a net payment.

31. The ICA also recommended that the DVSA increase its consolatory payment to £1,200. The DVSA had initially offered £750, which it said was in line with the lower end of Level 3 of our Severity of Injustice Scale (SOIS). The ICA considered the impact on Mr R had been greater than the DVSA had first assessed given the financial disruption and distress caused by the temporary removal of his ATB authority.

32. In reaching this view the ICA considered whether Level 4 of the SOIS would apply, but concluded that this threshold had not been met as the distress did not appear to have lasted longer than 12 months and the financial impact did not extend beyond approximately six months.

33. We consider the ICA acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration, particularly the principle of putting things right. This principle recognises that where something has gone wrong, public bodies should seek to provide an appropriate remedy that reflects the impact on the person affected.

34. In this case, we have seen the ICA carefully reviewed the DVSA’s initial approach, considered the financial evidence provided by Mr R, and developed an alternative method for estimating the loss of income before recommending an increased financial remedy. Overall, we consider the ICA’s recommendations represented a reasonable attempt to address the financial loss and distress caused by the earlier decision to remove Mr R’s ATB authority.

Tax deduction

35. The DVSA calculated that Mr R would need to pay tax and national insurance contributions on the payment it awarded him for lost revenue whilst his ATB was revoked. Mr R does not agree that this should have been taxed.

36. The ICA addressed this issue and explained that the DVSA were entitled to deduct the amounts due to the payment reflecting what Mr R would have been paid in net income had his ATB authority not been removed.

37. We have noted DVSA’s view that the payments made to Mr R came with a tax liability. This is not something we can comment on further. We should make clear that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is the organisation responsible for determining whether tax has been calculated and collected correctly. If Mr R believes he has been incorrectly taxed, he would need to make enquiries with that organisation about putting matters right for him. We understand that he is currently in the process of doing so. Although this is not something we can help him with, if Mr R remains unhappy with HMRC’s responses he is welcome to raise may be able to complain to us about that response.

38. We have seen that the DVSA and ICA acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration, being open and accountable. This principle sets out that public bodies are open and truthful when accounting for their decisions and actions. They should state their criteria for decision making and give reasons for their decisions. We have seen that this was the case in Mr R’s complaint when it explained its view on why he was taxed on the payment for lost earnings. We understand Mr R’s objections to the amount he was taxed here and recognise the ongoing dissatisfaction this caused him.

Mr R states the DVSA were biased and discriminatory towards him and treated him unfairly and did not respond to his complaints.

39. Mr R tells us that the DVSA incorrectly informed him that he was able to review the decision to remove his authority as an ATB We note how this caused Mr R frustration epically when this turned out to be incorrect.

40. The DVSA responded to this issue and said it was sorry for giving Mr R misleading information as he could not review the decision to remove his authority as an ATB. Instead the DVSA informed Mr R would need to submit any representation to DVSA to state why he felt his ATB authority should not be removed.

41. The DVSA also offered Mr R £50 compensation and made him aware of the correct process to put forward any as outlined above. We consider that this is in line with our Principles of Good Administration here putting things right. As outlined above where something has gone wrong, public bodies should seek to provide an appropriate remedy that reflects the impact on the person affected. We consider an apology ,explanation and financial remedy enough to put things right here.

42. We also consider that the DVSA and ICA complaint responses addressed the issues Mr R raised, although we appreciate he disagrees with the outcome.

43. We recognise this will not be the outcome Mr R was hoping for. We understand that engaging with the DVSA over a prolonged period, including gathering supporting evidence, will have been difficult. We thank him for bringing his concerns to us and hope this explanation clarifies how we have reached our view.

1. We have carefully considered Mr R’s complaint about the DVSA. We have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong.

2. Mr R complains that the DVSA incorrectly removed his authorisation as an approved training body (ATB) for two months. We understand the distressing impact his complaint had on him.