Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

4. Mr W complains that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) refused to exchange his Portuguese driving licence for a UK licence. He also complains he was given incorrect information about exchanging his licence during calls with the contact centre in December 2023.

5. As a result, he complains he has been unable to take a second job as a driver and has experienced financial difficulties.

6. To resolve his complaint, Mr W is seeking an apology and explanation of the DVLA’s actions. He is also seeking a financial remedy and service improvements.

7. Mr W had held a Portuguese driving licence since approximately 2004. This was originally granted in exchange for an Angolan driving licence. He had passed his driving test in Angola in 1998.

8. In 2023, Mr W contacted the DVLA about exchanging his Portuguese driving licence for a UK driving licence. During calls with the DVLA contact centre, he was told he could exchange the license.

9. After submitting his application, Mr W’s request was rejected. The DVLA told him this was because his licence was originally issued by a third-party country so did not meet the criteria for exchange.

10. Mr W raised a complaint to the DVLA in June 2025, and he appealed its first response on 24 June. The DVLA provided a second response in September 2025.

11. Mr W appealed his complaint to the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA - a second-tier complaints handler for the Department for Transport and its agencies). The ICE issued its report in December 2025.

Refusal to exchange licence

14. 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. We have done this and have not seen any indications that something has gone wrong.

15. Mr W complains the DVLA has refused to exchange his licence. He told us he has a Portuguese driving licence which permits him to drive cars and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). He told us this had been issued in exchange for an Angolan driving licence, where he had originally passed his test.

16. We understand there is an arrangement in place which permits individuals to drive in Portugal if they hold a licence issued by a member state of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries (CPLP). Angola is a member state of this group.

17. Mr W explained his main concern was that the DVLA’s decision meant he was not permitted to drive large vehicles in Great Britain. We understand he may have been permitted to drive cars and motorcycles for a period of 12 months. He said he had therefore been unable to take a second job as a delivery driver, which had caused him financial difficulty.

18. The DVLA explained the law makes provisions for driving licences to be exchanged for a UK driving licence if the country of issue belongs to one of two groups. The first is those from the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA). The second is a group of ‘designated countries’ which are listed in UK legislation.

19. It also explained that although there are therefore provisions in place to exchange Portuguese licences, as an EU/EEA country this only applies to licences originally issued in Portugal. It explained the arrangement does not extend to licences originally issued by a third-party country which is not part of one of the two groups. It said it was unable to exchange Mr W’s licence as it was originally issued in Angola, which is not part of either group.

20. We have reviewed the relevant law and guidance relating to this issue. We have also considered the DVLA’s online tools relating to driving licence exchange.

21. The DVLA’s online driving licence exchange tool contains information for individuals looking to exchange a licence permitting them to drive a lorry, bus or minibus. It is clear that if the licence was issued in a country outside the EU/EEA this cannot be exchanged for a UK driving licence. It is also important to note that the online tool asks for information about where an individual passed their test to make this decision.

22. The legislation relevant to this case is the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) and the Driving Licences (Exchangeable Licences) Order 1999. We have also referred to the 2024 agreement between the UK and Portugal on Mutual Recognition of Driving Licences.

23. Article 3 (7) of the 2024 Agreement explains that licences which are granted in exchange for a licence from a third State (as Mr W’s Portuguese licence is) will be considered in line with the domestic law of the other country (in this instance, the UK).

24. Sections 89 (1)(ea and f) of the RTA 1988 explain a licence can be granted to an individual who holds a community licence or an exchangeable licence. The definitions of these terms are given in section 108 (1) of the same act.

25. The definition of community licence explains this would be a licence issued by an EEA state. However, it also contains a specific statement explaining a licence originally issued in exchange for a licence from a country outside the EU/EEA is not classed as a community licence.

26. The definition of an exchangeable licence is one issued in respect of a designated country. The designated countries are set out in the Order from 1999. Angola is not included in this list.

27. Based on the DVLA’s publicly available resources, as well as the legislation cited above, we consider there was no requirement for DVLA to exchange Mr W’s licence. This is because his Portuguese licence was issued in exchange for a licence from a third-party country outside the EU. It therefore does not meet the definition of a community licence and would not be eligible for exchange.

28. It also does not meet the definition of an exchangeable licence as it was not issued by a country on the designated list. We therefore consider the DVLA acted in line with the relevant guidance in refusing to exchange Mr W’s licence.

29. We recognise that this outcome will be disappointing for Mr W, particularly given the financial difficulties he has described. We also understand that he wanted a clearer explanation of why his licence could not be exchanged. We hope the explanation above helps him understand the basis of the DVLA’s decision.

Incorrect information from contact centre

30. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we consider the DVLA has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.

31. Mr W complains he was given incorrect information by call handlers at the DVLA contact centre in December 2023. He says he was told he could exchange his Portuguese driving licence for a UK licence and began the process for this. This involved submitting an application form and requesting a medical report from his GP with a cost of £58.

32. The DVLA accepted it had given incorrect information during the calls with Mr W. It also outlined steps it had taken to address this with the staff involved including recommendations for development and training. In the final response, the DVLA also offered a consolatory payment of £120 and reimbursement of the £58 medical fee.

33. There is no dispute regarding the presence of accepted failings during the calls. We have therefore focused our consideration on the impact of this on Mr W, and the steps the DVLA has taken to put things right.

34. Mr W told us about the wider impact of this complaint relating to his inability to take up secondary employment as a driver, and we recognise the seriousness of the wider financial impact for him. The evidence indicates that this arose from the DVLA’s decision that his licence was not eligible for exchange, rather than from the incorrect information given during the calls. As explained above, we have not seen an indication that the decision to refuse the exchange was incorrect.

35. We can therefore link the incorrect advice to the inconvenience and distress caused by pursuing an application that could not succeed, and to the unnecessary £58 cost of obtaining the medical report.

36. As we have noted, the DVLA has offered to reimburse the cost of this medical exam, and to pay a consolatory payment of £120.

37. We have considered the DVLA’s actions to remedy the complaint in line with our Principles of Good Administration (our principles) and our guidance on financial remedy (Severity of injustice scale - SOI).

38. Section five of our Principles for Remedy relates to putting things right. It explains the remedy offered by the public body should seek to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. It also explains where this is not possible it should fairly reflect the harm the complainant has suffered.

39. It is clear that if the DVLA had not given Mr W incorrect information, it is unlikely he would have sought a medical exam and incurred the associated cost. It is therefore also clear that putting Mr W back in the position he would have been in if this did not occur would involve reimbursing the cost of the exam. As the DVLA has offered to do so, we consider it has acted in line with our principles.

40. Our SOI scale outlines different amounts of financial remedy we consider to be appropriate for different levels of impact. Level two ranges from £120-£550 and the guidance explains impacts at this level will typically arise from a relatively low impact failing, often resulting in a degree of distress or inconvenience.

41. It also explains impacts in this level may involve distress, worry or annoyance which does not impact on the affected person’s day to day functioning for a period from 1-2 weeks to about six months. We would reasonably expect any impact to diminish completely in the fullness of time.

42. In relation specifically to the incorrect information given during the calls, the available evidence does not show that the resulting distress or inconvenience significantly affected Mr W’s day-to-day functioning. We therefore consider that the impact falls within level two of our severity of injustice scale.

43. The £120 remedy the DVLA has offered to remedy the impact on Mr W falls within the level two range. When combined with the offer to reimburse the cost of the medical exam, we consider it represents a remedy to the complaint which is in line with the guidance.

44. We acknowledge Mr W has not accepted the offer put forward by the DVLA. Our role is to consider whether the organisation has taken appropriate action and provided an appropriate remedy. Whilst we do have regard to what the complainant is seeking in doing this, it is for us to determine whether an organisation’s actions have resolved a complaint.

45. For the reasons set out above, we consider the DVLA has taken appropriate steps to attempt to resolve the situation and remedy the injustice. We will therefore not consider it further.

46. We recognise that Mr W will be disappointed by our decision, particularly given the difficult financial circumstances he has described. We hope this statement provides a clear explanation of how we reached our decision.