Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

3. Mr C complains that DVLA processed an old V5C form which incorrectly changed the ownership of his car to the previous owner. He complains that as a result, clean air zone fines were sent to his address with the previous owner’s name. He therefore did not pay the original fines and as a result the four fines continued escalated in cost until his car was clamped. He also complains that due to DVLA’s processing error, he was unable to register for his no-tax vehicle online and was fined. He says that the fines have pushed him into a cycle of debt as he had to borrow money to pay for the fines. He also says that the stress has negatively impacted his relationships, and he now suffers with severe depression.

4. He adds that DVLA’s complaint handling was unfair and unclear as it didn’t thoroughly explain its decision-making process, which he says has been very distressing.

5. He is seeking an apology and explanation, service improvements and financial remedy complete reimbursement of the total escalations of the fines and £500 extra for the emotional and financial distress caused.

6. In June 2022, Mr C bought a car via an online transaction through a friend who was helping to arrange the vehicle’s sale on behalf of the previous owner. The previous keeper’s name was mis-spelled at some point during the transaction which resulted in an incorrect name on the V5C (otherwise known as a log book – the DVLA registration certificate which lists the vehicle’s registered keeper). The previous keeper says that the same month, they sent DVLA section 3 of their V5C to notify DVLA to correct the spelling of their name on the V5C. DVLA says that it actually received this section in May 2023.

7. In May 2023, DVLA processed the section 3 slip and transferred the registered keeper of the vehicle back to the previous keeper. In effect, Mr C’s address was still the registered address, but the registered keeper’s name was changed back to the previous keeper. This meant when DVLA sent post concerning the vehicle in question, it was addressed to the previous keeper, but to Mr C’s address. Mr C says he assumed the letters were for a previous occupant and that he returned the letters to sender.

8. On 1 December, Mr C’s vehicle tax ran out. At some point that month, Mr C attempted to register for his vehicle tax exemption online, but was unable to and did not take any further action. Mr C then used his car without tax cover until May 2024.

9. Between December 2023 and April 2024, Mr C drove through Birmingham’s Clear Air Zone (CAZ) and London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) a total of four times: 1 December 2023, 24 March 2024, 18 April 2024, and a last unknown date. The fines were sent to Mr C’s address but addressed to the previous keeper’s name; Mr C returned these to sender. Mr C did not pay the original fines, so all the fines were escalated.

10. In May, Mr C’s car was clamped due to not paying his first Birmingham CAZ fine. Mr C then spoke to his friend who had arranged the vehicle sale, who made Mr C aware there had been an issue with the previous owner’s details on the logbook. Mr C then started to open mail he had received addressed to the previous keeper. Mr C’s friend contacted the previous owner to enquire about what had happened with the logbook.

11. In July, DVLA corrected its record and told Mr C that it would issue him a new V5C with the correct keeper details on.

12. In total, Mr C’s original fines totalled £300. Following multiple escalations in which Mr C did not settle, Mr C paid £1,587 - a total escalation of £1,287 from the original fines.

13. Mr C complained to DVLA requesting compensation for the total cost of the fine escalations and an additional £500 for emotional distress caused by its processing error.

14. DVLA ultimately offered Mr C £500 in total. Then, DVLA’s second-tier complaints handler, the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA), partly upheld Mr C’s complaint and recommended that Mr C accepts DVLA’s offer of £500. The ICA also recommended that DVLA compensate Mr C an additional £179, making a total of £679.

V5C Processing and fines

17. DVLA accepts that it made a processing error. It was unable to explain exactly how it happened, but what is clear is that in taking an action that resulted in this mix-up, there was maladministration on the part of DVLA. DVLA accepts this and, as we shall later point out, has agreed to look again at how this happened.

18. Mr C complains that if DVLA had not misregistered his vehicle, he would not have had to pay the escalations in the fines, and his car would not have been clamped. He says that the fines pushed him into debt and caused him and his family severe stress and emotional distress.

19. DVLA issued two complaint responses to Mr C. Initially, it explained that it must process many documents it receives in good faith. It said it requires individuals who receive mail from it that is not addressed to them, to return the mail immediately, with a covering letter which explains this. It said that although Mr C had returned the post to sender, he had not attached a cover letter and therefore DVLA could not identify the error.

20. It noted that Mr C had said in his complaint that he ‘was simply waiting for the clean air zone letter fine in [his] name and [he] would have settled it asap’. It said this implied that he was aware he was driving through CAZs and therefore had the opportunity to pay online up to six days before and after the day he travelled in the CAZ.

21. It also explained that Mr C’s Late Licensing Penalty of £80 for not registering for his tax was not in his name and had been closed, therefore it would not compensate him for this.

22. DVLA concluded by acknowledging its poor service and offering a consolatory payment of £200. It explained that it does not believe that it is responsible for paying a total reimbursement of the escalated cost of fines that Mr C requested.

23. DVLA later acknowledged what it described as its ‘data incident error’ caused Mr C upset and distress and increased its consolatory payment to £500. It said this amount reflected an acceptance of a measure of responsibility for the fine escalations.

24. It is clear that DVLA made a processing error by reverting the vehicle’s registered keeper to the previous keeper’s name. We are pleased to see that it has apologised for this mistake. What Mr C and DVLA disagree on is the amount to which DVLA’s mistake contributed to Mr C incurring the escalations of the fines he received.

25. As driver, Mr C is responsible for knowing when he is travelling through CAZs. The zones are signposted: ‘Charges apply Pay online’. Mr C has said that he knowingly drove through CAZs and was waiting to receive the fines in the post to pay. Mr C had the opportunity to avoid receiving fines in the first place, by paying online six days before or after driving through CAZs. If Mr C had paid online, he would have avoided all fines and the subsequent escalations that he incurred. Mr C agrees that he is responsible for the incurring the original fines. He takes full ownership of this and is not seeking compensation for the original fines.

26. Mr C says if DVLA had not made a mistake, then his fines would have been addressed to him and he would have paid them, without incurring fine escalations. We weighed up what is likely to have happened had the processing error not occurred. Given Mr C ignored his responsibility to pay the CAZ fines, it is entirely possible he might have ignored his responsibility to pay the fines associated with them. It is, however, more likely that he simply thought he had somehow escaped being fined the CAZs because he received no notification otherwise. A fine through the post is likely to have grabbed his attention and triggered him to pay in order to avoid further escalation. At the very least, it is more likely than not that he would have paid up at some point before the fines escalated to such a stage that his car ended up being clamped.

27. Therefore, we consider that on the balance of probabilities the amount which Mr C ended up owing in fines would have been less if DVLA had not made a processing error. This could have even been as low as his first fine (£60), as this fine could have alerted Mr C to the fact he will face enforcement if he does not pay to drive through CAZs.

28. However, the matter is not as straightforward as that. Mr C had an opportunity to notice that there was a problem with his vehicle registration a few months after he bought the car.

29. Mr C was unable to pay for his car tax online when he attempted to in December, after his tax ran out on 30 November.

30. We understand Mr C’s view that his car is a tax-exempt vehicle and therefore he might have assumed it would be ok to not register online. However, he still had to register his vehicle for this exemption online, before his tax ran out. Mr C should have contacted DVLA immediately when he could not register online using his V5C reference number. This would almost certainly have alerted Mr C and DVLA to DVLA’s processing error. This might not have happened before he would receive (and pay) the first fine as it was on the same day he tried to tax the vehicle, but it would have almost certainly happened before he drove through further charging zones. Instead, Mr C drove his car untaxed until May 2024 when it was clamped.

31. We do not think that what DVLA has agreed or been asked to pay goes far enough to put right the impact of its processing error on Mr C. DVLA’s financial remedy is based on three beliefs: it made a processing error, Mr C could have avoided any fines at all by paying his CAZ fines online before they become fines, and Mr C should have sent it a cover letter to inform it of its mistake. We agree with DVLA’s first two views but not the latter.

32. We think DVLA and Mr C share responsibility for the costs Mr C incurred. To try and apportion responsibility, we looked at the errors and missed opportunities of both Mr C and DVLA.

33. On one hand, Mr C could have avoided all fines by paying his CAZ fees online. Mr C agrees with this, and this is why he is seeking the fine escalations, not the original fines. On the other hand, had DVLA not made the processing error, he’d have likely paid the first fine and that might have even served as caution to him to avoid the following three. That said, Mr C knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that he needed to pay the CAZ and he did not.

34. As already noted, Mr C did not contact DVLA to find out why he could not register for his no-tax exemption. Had Mr C applied early for his no-tax exemption, it may have been possible to avoid his first fine. But, given that Mr C was able to apply to tax his vehicle in December, it is reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt here and assume that if he applied on the due date, it might still have taken a few days for the error to be identified and fixed.

35. We appreciate that DVLA said it followed operating instructions when it received the returned letter, however, this was still a missed opportunity to identify its own error.

36. There were clearly errors and missed opportunities on both sides. Each of these might have had a range of consequences, some more likely than others. As it is, there is no way of knowing exactly what would have happened had DVLA not made its error, but on the balance of probabilities, had Mr C been correctly notified of the fines, they would not have escalated to the extent they did.

37. We cannot say that if DVLA had not made a processing error, Mr C would have completely avoided any fine escalations. To reflect that it was DVLA’s error originally and that DVLA and Mr C both had opportunities to avoid Mr C incurring the fine escalations, we see DVLA and Mr C as both 50% responsible for the fine escalations. We therefore recommend that DVLA pay Mr C 50% of the escalations in fines he incurred, which is £643.50.

DVLA’s complaint handling

38. Mr C complains that DVLA’s complaint handling was unfair and unclear as it did not explain where the figures of £200 and £500 of compensation originated from, and that this lack of explanation made him doubt its decision-making process.

39. DVLA first offered a consolatory payment of £200 for its poor service and then increased this to £500, to acknowledge that what happened caused distress to Mr C and to reflect its share of the responsibility for the fine escalations.

40. Our Central Government Complaints Standards outline that there is no automatic or routine remedy for injustice or hardship resulting from maladministration or poor service. It says that there can be many remedies, which can be financial or non-financial. DVLA acted in line with our Standards by offering an apology, explanation and acknowledgement of responsibility.

41. The Standards outline different factors to consider when deciding the level of financial compensation for inconvenience or distress. as Mr C says, it is not clear from DVLA’s responses what factors it took into account. Therefore, it would have been helpful to outline to Mr C more about its decision-making process.

42. We recognise that although there are different standards, guidance and principles to guide DVLA complaint handling, there is no specific formula to support it to decide how much it should compensate someone in Mr C’s circumstances. The amount that DVLA chose to offer Mr C was a judgement-based discretionary decision, which is why it would have been particularly helpful if it explained more about its decision-making process. This potentially would have reassured Mr C that DVLA understood the amount of distress that he had experienced and the impact it had had upon him.

43. DVLA could have improved how it explained its decision-making process to Mr C. However, given the unique circumstances of this case and the lack of applicable guidance on how to handle such a matter, we do not think its complaint handling fell so far short of what we expect that it amounts to a failing.

1. We found that DVLA’s processing error contributed to Mr C missing the opportunity to settle his Clean Air Zone and Ultra Low Emission Zone fines and ultimately having his car clamped and having to enter into debt to pay for the fines. Although DVLA’s complaint responses could have been more detailed, we found that its complaint handling was in line with the applicable standards. We therefore partly uphold Mr C’s complaint.

2. DVLA has already acknowledged what went wrong and apologised. We have recommended service improvements and a financial remedy.