Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency

4. Mr A complains about the service he received from the DVSA between 27 March 2024 and 26 September 2024. He complains that:

• The actions of two DVSA examiners were inappropriate. This included illegitimate visits to his home, leaving his wife alarmed and distressed, and attempts to misuse powers to enter workplaces without permission.

• A Maintenance Investigation Visit Report (MIVR) contained errors, did not match the letter that he had provided and made false and misleading claims about him.

• His personal data was inappropriately obtained and included in the MIVR • The complaints process was inadequate. This included complaint responses from the DVSA being outside the required timeframes, a lack of independence (the investigation was carried out by the DVSA Enforcement Department, who the complaint was about) and a failure to take any action where issues were highlighted. The DVSA also refused to respond fully to complaints made on 13 June 2024 and 2 August 2024, particularly the issues raised around his complaints of dishonesty and incompetence.

5. Mr A explained that the actions of the examiners constitute victimisation, and that he was deliberately singled out and targeted. This caused stress and worry both to him and his wife

6. He also told us that the actions of the DVSA led to him being wrongly called to appear in a Public Inquiry, and this caused additional and significant stress and worry, and was also very time-consuming.

7. Due to delays in the complaints process, Mr A had to put in substantial time and effort into chasing responses from the DVSA.

8. By bringing the complaint to PHSO, Mr A wants to bring about change in the DVSA and to protect others from encountering the same experiences he has had. He wants the DVSA to provide a full and proper response to all the issues raised about the MIVR, in particular the claims of dishonesty.

9. He wants to receive independent backing to show that he was subjected to deliberate victimisation, and that this was not simply a case or issues occurring due to staff making mistakes. Based upon this, he wants the DVSA to implement comprehensive training for existing and new enforcement staff.

10. He wants to see changes in the DVSA to ensure accountability when failings occur, and for complaints to not just be dealt with in-house. He believes that a Professionals Standards Department should be created, who the public can directly complain to, and who can independently look at complaints about the DVSA.

11. Lastly, he believes it would be appropriate to recommend that the DVSA should consider the positions of the individuals involved.

12. Mr A is a Transport Manager. On 27 March 2024 an operator that he manages had a routine Maintenance Investigation.

13. Mr A says that after leaving the operating centre that day two DVSA examiners came to his home and left his wife alarmed and distressed. He explained that they also visited his MOT station that day (which was closed at the time), and one of the examiners revisited his home again on 28 March.

14. Mr A says that on this occasion they also visited another operator he manages, as well as the MOT station, where they shook the doors, causing the security alarm to go off. One of the examiners visited the MOT station again on 2nd April 2024 and attempted to misuse his official powers to enter the property without permission.

15. Following this, Mr A says there were multiple other issues which he believes amount to victimisation.

16.

17. He also complains that a Maintenance Investigation Visit Report that was created by the DVSA misrepresented a letter he had written, leading to him being called to a public inquiry. A Maintenance Investigation Visit Report (MIVR) is a document created by the DVSA after it has conducted maintenance investigations for operator licence holders

Inappropriate Behaviour

20. Mr A complains that the actions of two DVSA examiners were inappropriate. These actions included visits to his home which left his wife alarmed and distressed, as well as visiting his workplaces without permission, which Mr A says was a deliberate and illegitimate misuse of their powers.

21. Mr A says that the DVSA has a list of stated reasons why its employees may take such steps, and that none of the reasons apply to his case.

22. He explained the DVSA told him these steps were taken as there were questions it needed him to answer. Mr A says these questions would have been covered in the DVSA’s routine interview anyway as part of the MIVR process, and this was not covered by the listed reasons mentioned.

23. In its complaint response of 30 May 2024, DVSA confirmed to Mr A that the staff who attended his home were trying to contact him as part of an investigation to establish the details of his role as Transport Manager for a company he represents.

24. DVSA notes that a Transport Manager (TM) is an official role within an Operator Licence authority, and as such is sometimes required to speak to DVSA regarding any Operator they may represent.

25. It explained that the examiners had attended the Operator’s premises first, who stated they did not know of Mr A’s whereabouts. They also attended the premises of the second Operator he represents, who advised them that they believed Mr A may be on holiday. It was at this point that the examiners then attended Mr A’s home.

26. DVSA acknowledges that Mr A said in his emails that DVSA officials have no authority to trespass or visit his private address. DVSA responded to say that as this is the address listed on the Vehicle Operator Licensing (VOL) and the Operator Licensing Compliance System (OLCS) for him as the TM, this is therefore a property they do have a right to visit, and that this is standard practice as part of any investigation.

27. Regarding the contact of the two examiners once at Mr A’s home, DVSA explained that as part of its investigation it had viewed the video footage and had discussed this with the examiners.

28. One of the examiners explained that after getting no answer at the front door, he went to the side door to knock there. DVSA says the video shows he did not cross through any gated entrance to reach the side door. He does however acknowledge how this could have been perceived and apologises for causing any stress to Mrs A, and that this was never the intention.

29. DVSA states that following this, a letter was sent to Mr A, inviting him to attend the DVSA site to speak to the examiners about the ongoing enquiry but that Mr A declined.

30. DVSA says that whilst it accepts that the examiners perhaps could have been more considerate whilst attending Mr A’s home, it does not consider their attempts to speak to him as part of an investigation amount to harassment or trespass.

31. After Mr A informed DVSA he was not satisfied with this response, it escalated the matter to the second stage of its complaint process and provided a further response on 10 July 2024. It noted his request for the matter to be escalated to an ombudsman, but DVSA advised that this stage was required first.

32. The DVSA explained that since the establishment of the operator licensing system in 1968, the DVSA (under its various agency names) has played a pivotal role in overseeing Operator Licences and appointed Transport Managers. It said that the responsibilities of DVSA examiners include acting as enforcement officers ensuring compliance with legislative rules and regulations and also representing the Traffic Commissioner (the industry regulator).

33. It explained that the Traffic Commissioner issues operator licences and ensures that nominated Transport Managers maintain high standards and fulfil their legal obligations regarding passenger transport. Regardless of delegated responsibilities, Transport Managers retain legal accountability both professionally and personally.

34. It explained that its examiners routinely visit various locations as part of their duties, including operating centres, registered offices, and residential properties, and confirmed that it is common practice for businesses and Transport Managers to designate their residential addresses as their primary place of business.

35. DVSA explained that when initiating contact, its examiners prioritise visits to designated operating centres. However, if a Transport Manager oversees multiple licences without being employed full-time by the business, DVSA relies on the declared details within VOL.

36. DVSA explained that in the case of Mr A, the only contact details provided on the VOL is home addresses, with no phone number or email address being provided.

37. DVSA explained it had assessed the activities of the examiners, including the timing of their visit, and deemed their conduct to have been entirely appropriate. It explained their actions were conducted on behalf of the Traffic Commissioner.

38. DVSA explained it consulted with the examiners involved regarding appropriate actions in such scenarios, and took Mr A’s feedback on board, calling it ‘invaluable from the stakeholders' perspective’. DVSA noted that Mr A had helped highlight that the involvement of two examiners might be perceived as excessive scrutiny. It accepted that when they knocked on Mr A’s door, one of the examiners could have remained in their vehicle until contact was made, allowing time to formulate a plan to obtain the necessary sign-off of the MIVR and finalise their report.

39. However, DVSA reiterated it was essential for the examiners to discuss their findings in person with Mr A so they could discuss agreed corrective action, and provide appropriate advice, as well as address any questions he might have.

40. DVSA said that if the actions of the examiners caused stress and anxiety to Mr A’s wife, that was not their intention, and they offer their apologies. However, the investigation concluded that the actions of the examiners on the day in question were appropriate and proportionate given the significant responsibilities they were fulfilling on behalf of the Traffic Commissioner.

41. DVSA at this point referred to the statutory guidance on the matter, which outlines the following:

• “All operators have a positive duty to co-operate with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and the traffic commissioner.

• this may include attendance at educational seminars or to provide compliant documentation • Other relevant conduct may include, but not be limited to, matters such as: a failure to heed instructions, any failure to follow lawful instructions, obstruct/intimidation of public officials such as DVSA examiners, or operation outside of any international agreements.

• Members of staff should refer to the Guidance for examples of conduct which might impact on an operator/applicant’s fitness/repute. In general, traffic commissioners will be assisted by any information relating to the following matters: DVSA or Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) inability to contact operator and transport managers.

• Examples of conduct which might be relevant: Abusive behaviour, dishonesty or lack of co-operation towards DVSA and/or other enforcement officers and/or the traffic commissioner or OTC staff, inability of DVSA and/or other enforcement officers or OTC to make contact.”

42. A further response was provided on 7 October 2024. The response upheld the previous findings and DVSA said it had nothing further to add on this point. It noted that it could not escalate the matter to the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA) until the Traffic Commissioner had completed its report of the public enquiry, which took place a few days earlier 3 October 2024).

43. Following the deputy traffic commissioner deciding that you need not attend the public inquiry, they stated at the end of their decision ‘…I see nothing in Vehicle Examiner Smith’s MIVR to justify the level of criticism in Mr A’s file and the MIVR appears reasoned and reasonable, with evidence to support the assessments...”.

44. 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. Having done that, we have not found indications of maladministration in relation to the visits to Mr A’s home and workplaces.

45. Mr A had advised us he was told by DVSA there is a list of stated reasons why its employees may need to visit someone’s home during an investigation, but that the reason he was given for the visit to his property is not covered by this this.

46. As part of our investigation, we asked the DVSA about this list. The DVSA advised it is not aware of any such list restricting or prescribing specific reasons when or why an examiner can attend a residential address during an investigation. It advised examiners try to avoid visiting a residential address wherever possible, but that it is sometimes necessary.

47. DVSA explained its examiners are authorised to make enquiries from a combination of enforcement powers relating to road transport legislation and the regulatory oversight functions connected to operator licensing under the ‘Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995’.

48. It explained that operational necessity means examiners may make enquiries at “any address associated with a licensed operator or transport manager, where that address is recorded on VOL, or becomes apparent during the investigation (such as an additional operating centre) where it is reasonably necessary to do so for checking compliance, fact finding, or safeguarding the integrity of an investigation.”

49. This would tally with its responses to Mr A’s complaint.

50. Accordingly, says the DVSA, the visit to Mr A’s property was not required to match a predefined “listed” reason, but it was necessary to attempt to engage with him early during the investigation to confirm his involvement within the business. This was the reason for the visit, which DVSA maintains was acceptable.

51. We spoke with Mr A again, to explain that the DVSA had said it was not aware of the list being described, and Mr A provided us with information that the DVSA had sent to his son on 27 October 2025 in response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, that he had made in relation to his own complaint about the DVSA.

52. The FOI request specifically asked for the DVSA to confirm the reason “an authorised MOT station can be officially entered.” So, while it does not mention that authority to visit a person’s residence, they had been specifically asked about when examiners could enter an MOT station, not where else they may visit.

53. In responding to this, the DVSA referred to ‘The Road Traffic Act 1998”. However, the powers relevant here are those connected to operator licensing under the ‘Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995’.

54. We can see that at the time; this was the only contact information available to DVSA would have been from the VOL account. DVSA says had other contact methods been specified on that platform (such as a telephone number), then a first attempt at contact would have been made that way.

55. We have seen nothing to suggest there is anything to prevent DVSA examiners from contacting people via the methods used.

56. It is Mr A’s position that DVSA should have waited for the routine interview as part of the MIVR process to ask any questions, rather than visiting his home and workplace. During our investigation was asked DVSA what reasons (if any) there were which meant these questions needed to be asked immediately, and it could not wait for the interview.

57. DVSA explained that the MIVR interview process is not the sole or exclusive opportunity for DVSA to ask questions during an investigation, and that examiners will seek answers prior to the interview if they consider that:

•            “There is a need to clarify facts promptly •            There is a potential risk to evidence integrity •            There is uncertainty regarding compliance, repute, or operational arrangements”

58. The DVSA advised that in order to obtain the relevant facts, and ensure that the correct persons are interviewed, its examiners may make earlier enquiries.

59. In Mr A’s case, the DVSA advised that the questions the examiners wished to ask during the visit to the home address were considered proportionate and necessary at that stage of the investigation and were not intended to replace or bypass the MIVR process.

60. DVSA said it had been informed by the license holder (name redacted by PHSO) at the operating centre that Mr A was no longer in position as the transport manager on the license. DVSA said it needed early clarification of this to ensure the investigations were on the correct route.

61. DVSA said that had Mr A confirmed the situation, a brief conversion with him to either confirm or deny his current involvement with the company would have concluded all the involvement necessary with him on that day. This would have allowed the examiners to either conclude their enquiries with him, or to schedule the interview (if he was still involved in the business despite the license holder believing that he was not).

62. DVSA explained that examiners are responsible for ensuring their time (and in turn public funds) is not wasted in scheduling or facilitating interviews that serve no purpose.

63. We can see that when the examiners were unable to make contact with Mr A at the addresses, then an invitation letter to attend interview was sent to by post, which was later declined by Mr A.

64. As discussed above, in the complaint response of 30 May 2024, DVSA had explained to Mr A that its examiners can visit a Transport Manager’s home if it is listed for them on the Vehicle Operator Licensing (VOL) and the Operator Licensing Compliance System (OLCS). We asked DVSA to provide a copy of the document which covers this, as well as the guidance referred to in its response of 10 July 2024.

65. While investigating this, we reviewed this guidance (‘the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995’).

66. This statutory guidance is issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner, and among other things it covers all aspects of the investigations, individual responsibilities, and stated cases.

67. We can see that examiners are expected to follow all reasonable lines of enquiry (wherever that may take them) to ensure the accuracy of their reports. On the evidence available, we are satisfied the examiners made a reasonable attempt to make the necessary enquiries at Mr A’s home address given the absence of an alternative means of contact being provided.

68. We have seen nothing to suggest it was inappropriate for the examiners to carry out the visits. In relation to this point of complaint, this just leaves the issues that Mr A told us that the visit left his wife alarmed and distressed. Mr A has provided camera evidence of the examiners visiting his property, but there is nothing to indicate that they spoke to (or even saw) his wife. The issue appears to be a) the force with which they knocked on his door and b) that they also went to the side door of the property.

69. We cannot tell from the video exactly how forceful the knocking was, and even if that were possible, we would have no written guidance on what force would be appropriate. We can see that attempting contact via the side door did not involve the examiner having to cross any fence of barrier, and so there would be nothing to suggest any inappropriate action here either.

70. For this point, there is nothing to indicate any maladministration.

Maintenance Investigation Visit Report

71. Mr A told us that a Maintenance Investigation Visit Report (MIVR) contained errors, did not match the letter that he had provided and made false and misleading claims about him.

72. He told us that the MIVR misrepresented his responses to the assessment, which he believes was done deliberately.

73. In the DVSA response on 25 February 2026 (at the second stage of its complaints procedure).

74. DVSA advised Mr A that previously, DVSA acknowledged that included in the correspondence from Mr A sent during the complaints process, he had raised a complaint regarding the information included in the Maintenance Investigation Visit Report (MIVR) completed by one of its examiners.

75. DVSA explained it had arranged for this complaint to be sent to the independent complaints assessor (ICA). On 8 October 2024, and at that time it believed it was Mr A’s complaint in its entirety that was to be referred to the ICA.

76. However, after receipt of further emails from Mr A and a subsequent conversation with the ICA referrals team, it recognised this was not the case, and apologised for any inconvenience this caused.

77. Regarding the MIVR, the DVSA confirmed it had looked at information in Mr A’s records from the commercial delivery team, the enforcement delivery manager, the information handling team and details from the Public Inquiry.

78. The DVSA noted that as it had explained in its email of 7 October 2024, it could see Mr A had received responses from the enforcement delivery team and also from the information handling team. They have each addressed the MIVR and stated the information contained within is relevant and correct.

79. DVSA explained that following the deputy traffic commissioner deciding that Mr A need not attend the public inquiry, they stated at the end of their decision ‘I see nothing in Vehicle Examiner’s [name redacted by PHSO] MIVR to justify the level of criticism in Mr A’s file and the MIVR appears reasoned and reasonable, with evidence to support the assessments.”

80. DVSA concluded by saying that as both subject matter experts and independent adjudicators had viewed the MIVR and found no inconsistencies or wrongdoing, it would be unable to uphold Mr A’s complaint on this point.

81. On 4 July 2024, DVSA wrote to Mr A follow its investigation of the discrepancies he had complained about. It acknowledged that the posted copy of the MIVR he received is different to the MIVR emailed to the operator. He also noted that it was not clear which MIVR is held on record.

82. He had provided DVSA with photographs of his posted copy to show this and screenshots of the MIVR emailed to the operator. He explained that the email version does not appear to be fully completed with most of the questions showing as unanswered and had not been signed off.

83. Mr A said it was unacceptable because the examiner has supplied either him or the operator with a report different to the one that was to be passed onto the OTC. He explained dependent on which version of the report went to the OTC, it may have had a significant impact on the MIVR response.

84. DVSA advised that a contributory cause here is that the MIVR document is an Adobe form and is not compatible with some devices (e.g. some phones and tablets), and it requires a desktop or laptop to open without causing these kinds of errors.

85. It explained the interactive MIVR form cannot be opened correctly on a mobile device as incorrect information is displayed, and that this has always been the case since the document was implemented.

86. DVSA explained it has contacted the creator of the interactive MIVR report for assistance regarding the technicalities behind this.

87. DVSA said it opened the online report to view it and confirmed it could see the same version that Mr A had sent. It obtained a copy from the Operator and also saw the same version (not the one that hasn’t been signed off, as Mr A had described).

88. DVSA explained this version of the report had now been locked, and they had taken screen captures of each area where the reports had previously differed to confirm they were now identical.

89. DVSA suggested that Mr A ask the Operator to only open the report on a desktop or laptop computer, not a phone or tablet. It explained that if the Operator is still having problems accessing the document, it would post a copy to their business address.

90. As per Mr A’s concern, DVSA confirmed he had replied to the correct report, and this is the report DVSA holds.

91. Moving on from this issue, DVSA discussed Mr A’s complaint about the follow up Desk Based Assessment (DBA) carried out on 24 April 2023, where a mostly satisfactory outcome was received.

92. DVSA said it had investigated and reviewed the events, which were a continuation of the original MIVR visit (20 January 2022). It said the original ‘Unsatisfactory’ MIVR had acceptable assurances supplied.

93. It explained the case was then referred to the Remote Enforcement Office (REO), and the original case remained open for a period to allow Mr A to fully implement the process described in the original MIVR. It had then requested evidence of those assurances being provided, to conclude the visit.

94. DVSA acknowledged that Mr A had brought to its attention several points, in which he disagreed with the shortcomings listed within the report.

95. The first being section 1 of the report, as not listing both Transport Managers (TM), It explained it is normal practice; the examiner will list either the main TM, or a TM that deals with the visit.

96. It explained the form does not have a section for additional TM’s to be added, but that if the Office of the Traffic commissioner (OTC) and any other party needed to review the report, they would be able to obtain the details of further TMs if required.

DVSA said that the process is that the examiner will provide the Operator and TM (and potentially other TMs) with a copy of their report. If shortcomings are identified by the examiner (as was the case here), the Operator and TM will have a period of 14 days to reply. In Mr A’s case this was extended.

97. DVSA explained that the MIVR response is opportunity to do the following:

• “Implement amendments to issues found, and details what amendments have been put in place • Offer clarity on any items where it appears that confusion has arisen, or the full details not included.

• Challenge the grading of any elements of the report it is believed to be incorrect”

98. DVSA told Mr A that once his response has been reviewed, the reporting examiner will and refer to it within their concluding marks.

99. In a further email to Mr A on 9 July 2024, DVSA explained that it conducts work on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport (including the MOT scheme, Operating Licensing, and other transport-related matters). Because of this, it explained it is obligated to ensure compliance across these schemes.

100. It explained it had provided a detailed explanation regarding the possible causes of discrepancies in the MIVR, specifically that they may have been accessed on an incompatible system. It explained the MIVR system has been in place for several years and that this is the first instance of such an issue being raised. DVSA advised it would forward Mr A’s concerns to the relevant department for further investigation.

101. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the event(s) complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we have found that DVSA has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.

102. It does appear that there were discrepancies between the MIVR and the information in the letter Mr A had provided upon which it was meant to be based.

103. DVSA has acknowledged this and appears to have carried out a thorough investigation into the possible causes and provided an explanation of this. There appears to be nothing to suggest the errors were included deliberately, as Mr A maintains.

104. Furthermore, it appears that once it was made aware of the issue and had investigated it, DVSA made the necessary corrections.

105. There does not appear to be anything to warrant further investigation here, as there is no outstanding impact that we would need to look to remedy.

Data Breach

106. Mr A complains that his personal data was inappropriately obtained and included in the MIVR. He explained that in question 13 the examiner has included personal details about him and private details about a company that he is one of the directors of (specifically that he runs an MOT station, along with all his roles listed on the MTS for the MOT station and its set testing hours).

107. Mr A maintains that this information could only have been obtained by the examiner misusing the access he has to the DVSA computer systems.

108. Mr A wanted this data to be removed before the MIVR is passed to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC). He maintains this information was irrelevant to anything that the OTC was to be informed of. He believes that the examiner was trying to introduce to the OTC the presumption that he single-handily runs a MOT station

109. Mr A noted that MOT stations are often run day-to-day as a team and can have an Authorised Examiner Delegate (AED) who can also hold the same additional roles, which Mr A says is the case here.

110. He explained that the set opening hours are also primarily there to provide notifications of when tests are carried out, outside of these hours. He informed DVSA that the actual circumstances and testing hours can vary daily, and so the inclusion of this information is incorrect and can be misleading. He explained there is a high risk this could have a detrimental impact on him; any operator for whom he is a transport manager for and the company where he is a director.

111. When reviewing the formal complaints responses, we could not see a reference to this issue and so contacted the DVSA to ask about it.

112. DVSA confirmed the data in question was removed from the MIVR and not shared with the OTC. They further advised that Mr A was advised by email about the removal of the information on 19 July 2024 and provided a copy of the email.

113. We can see that the email confirms the removal and also shows how the amended MIVR looks following this. DVSA also confirmed that it has asked its Data Protection Team to review this, and it confirmed that the information relating to the MOT garage now shown in the MIVR does not breach any data protection regulations as these details are publicly available.

114. If we carried out a detailed investigation and upheld this point, the likely remedy would be to recommend that DVSA amend the MIVR. DVSA has already removed the disputed information and confirmed the remaining information is publicly available. There is therefore no outstanding remedy for us to achieve by investigating this point further.

Complaints Process

115. Mr A says the complaints process was inadequately handled. He told us that the complaint responses from the DVSA were provided outside the required timeframes, there was a lack of independence (the investigation was carried out by the DVSA Enforcement Department who the complaint was about) and there was a failure to take any action where issues were highlighted.

116. Mr A told us that the DVSA also refused to respond fully to complaints made on 13 June 2024 and 2 August 2024, particularly the issues he raised around his complaints of dishonesty and incompetence.

117. After the DVSA provided its own final response, Mr A was not satisfied with how his complaint had been investigated and so escalated this to the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA), who provided their report into the matter on 5 March 2025.

118. The ICA noted some service failing, specifically that it took two months for the DVSA to acknowledge his original complaint of 31 March 2024, and that this was only after Mr A had twice had to chase the matter.

119. There was also a delay in the DVSA referring his complaint to the ICA after he asked for it to be escalated.

120. We have reviewed the same information as the ICA and would agree that responses were outside the published timescales, as was escalation to the ICA after Mr A’s request for this on 18 September 2024.

121. The ICA did acknowledge that there was the confusion regarding which of Mr A’s complaints were covered by the request, and we would agree that the confusion was potentially understandable, but it seems fair to say that this process still took too long.

122. The second part of this point relates to Mr A’s complaint that the complaints process was not independent, and it was simply a matter of the DVSA investigating itself. We would not look to uphold a complaint of this nature, as the complaints process states that the organisation should first investigate any complaints itself, and look to resolve them. This is not a failure to be independent, but rather often the quickest way for matters to be resolved (albeit that did not happen in this case).

123. It is standard practice across government departments and is also laid out in the DVSA’s own complaint procedure) for this to happen with any complaint, and there are escalation steps that can be taken afterwards (as Mr A has followed here in having the matter considered by both the ICA and PHSO).

124. We can see that the ICA recommended a consolatory payment of £200 for the inaccuracies and delays, and it is our decision that this would be satisfactory to remedy any potential failings, in line with our own ‘Severity of Injustice’ scale, which aims to provide guidance on what level of compensation should be recommended in such cases.

125. As we would not look to achieve a different outcome than the ICA did if we got on to uphold the complaint, there would be no reason for us to take this forward for a deeper investigation.

1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA). We would like to thank Mr A for bringing this matter to our attention, and recognise that it has been a distressing time, and a lengthy process.

2. For the complaint that members of DVSA staff behaved inappropriately when visiting Mr A’s home and places of work, we have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong.

3. For the complaints about the Maintenance Investigation Visit Report, a claimed data breach and failings in the complaints process, while we did see potential evidence of some failings, we have decided that the DVSA has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.