The following is a post by Sue Brown on Facebook that I have received permission from Sue to post.
-------
Hello, I have submitted my conversion twice and been refused. I took it to the Independent Complaints Assessor see their findings below and I apologise for the length of this post. My case is now with the Parliamentary Ombubsman. It doesnt affect the way we use our van but there is a principal at stake here and the DVLA need to be accountable for their decisions and treat people fairly. I have also obtained FOI figures of accepted conversions since May 2019 and had a response to my request for their criteria and copy of their reasonable request which I am happy to share
ICA Consideration
I fully understand why Mr Brown believes he has been treated unfairly. Indeed, like Mr H (and other customers too), Mr Brown has not been well served by the confusing, and arguably contradictory, advice available until recently on gov.uk.
I also must repeat what I said in my review of the complaint from Mr H: that I have no hesitation in saying that the confusing advice on gov.uk was evidence of maladministration.
It is also clear to me that many other customers who made applications to change the body type of their converted vehicles have in fact been treated differently to Mr Brown. Although the DVLA has said it assesses each application on a “case by case basis” (paragraphs 12, 16 and 26), this does not mean that decisions have been taken consistently, nor that the policy was not applied in a significantly different fashion until recently. Indeed, the statistics I have cited in paragraphs 19 and 28 show quite clearly the extent to which in practice the DVLA’s decisions have changed.
Moreover, while I have been told that there was no ‘trigger’ for the DVLA imposing its policy “more stringently” (paragraph 24) other than a change in the team responsible in Swansea, it does seem related to the increasing number of conversions of vans to campervans. As I have written in other reviews, the absence of any public announcement of the more stringent policy represents poor customer service. It is also inconsistent with the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administration, one of which reads in part https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/a…accountabl
https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/a…ccountable
“Public administration should be transparent and information should be handled as openly as the law allows. Public bodies should give people information and, if appropriate, advice that is clear, accurate, complete, relevant and timely.
“Public bodies should be open and truthful when accounting for their decisions and actions. They should state their criteria for decision making and give reasons for their decisions.”
As I have explained, I cannot comment on the policy itself, save to note that the objective of assisting the police and others in the identification of vehicles cannot be deemed improper or maladministrative. Indeed, quite the contrary. Nor do I think that the presence or otherwise of decals could reasonably be said to change a vehicle’s body shape.
I have also been pleased to learn that the DVLA is seeking long term solutions (that do not involve changing the recorded body type) for customers with converted vehicles. I also commend the introduction of a more collective approach to decision making to try to ensure greater consistency in the outcomes for customers.
However, it seems to me that the DVLA categorisation of motor caravan has fallen behind the times (see for example the many different body types on the camping and caravanning club website https://www.campingandcaravann…motorhome/ https://www.campingandcaravann…motorhome/ Only a minority of motor caravans (both converted and manufactured) now resemble the more traditional design of Winnebagos and similar models.
I am also concerned that vehicles that are to all intents and purposes identical are currently treated differently by the DVLA depending on whether they are conversions or roll off a production line. If the body shape is the same, so should be the body type recorded by the DVLA. As Mr Brown has argued, to do otherwise is an unfairness to private customers.
Conclusions
I entirely understand why Mr Brown has pursued his complaint so diligently, and am unhappy with the lack of openness that has characterised the much more stringent application of the DVLA’s policy on the registration of body type. I am also concerned by the apparent inconsistency in the treatment of converted and production-line vehicles. But given that my jurisdiction excludes DVLA policy, I can only part uphold Mr Brown’s complaint.
I fear that I also cannot assist Mr Brown directly in having his vehicle’s body type changed from van with windows.
I should, however, quote this extract from a report issued recently by my fellow ICA on a complaint from another customer denied the opportunity of changing the body type of his vehicle to motor caravan:
“The DVLA has told me that as soon as it became aware that there was a problem, it immediately began work on rectifying it with DfT and other stakeholders. I would suggest that the scale and content of customers’ objections to the change in the way the policy has been applied contains lessons for the Agency about future changes it may wish to make to the application of policy, generally. This is not a customer relations success story for the agency. Not for the first time, the impact on customers of changes in the way policy is applied has not been thought about enough in advance by the Agency. The DVLA’s policy team understandably expects decisions to be made consistently but in the real world, once again, it has until recently fallen to customer-facing colleagues and ICAs, after the event, to try and understand and explain decision-making to customers.”
This report now completes my review of the matters Mr Brown has raised, and all stages of the Department for Transport complaints process.
I hope my comments and findings are helpful, and can help bring this matter to a close. However, if Mr Brown wishes, he can ask an MP to refer his complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The Ombudsman would then consider the extent of any further review he considered necessary, in light in part of this ICA review.
Sue's YouTube...
-------
Hello, I have submitted my conversion twice and been refused. I took it to the Independent Complaints Assessor see their findings below and I apologise for the length of this post. My case is now with the Parliamentary Ombubsman. It doesnt affect the way we use our van but there is a principal at stake here and the DVLA need to be accountable for their decisions and treat people fairly. I have also obtained FOI figures of accepted conversions since May 2019 and had a response to my request for their criteria and copy of their reasonable request which I am happy to share
ICA Consideration
I fully understand why Mr Brown believes he has been treated unfairly. Indeed, like Mr H (and other customers too), Mr Brown has not been well served by the confusing, and arguably contradictory, advice available until recently on gov.uk.
I also must repeat what I said in my review of the complaint from Mr H: that I have no hesitation in saying that the confusing advice on gov.uk was evidence of maladministration.
It is also clear to me that many other customers who made applications to change the body type of their converted vehicles have in fact been treated differently to Mr Brown. Although the DVLA has said it assesses each application on a “case by case basis” (paragraphs 12, 16 and 26), this does not mean that decisions have been taken consistently, nor that the policy was not applied in a significantly different fashion until recently. Indeed, the statistics I have cited in paragraphs 19 and 28 show quite clearly the extent to which in practice the DVLA’s decisions have changed.
Moreover, while I have been told that there was no ‘trigger’ for the DVLA imposing its policy “more stringently” (paragraph 24) other than a change in the team responsible in Swansea, it does seem related to the increasing number of conversions of vans to campervans. As I have written in other reviews, the absence of any public announcement of the more stringent policy represents poor customer service. It is also inconsistent with the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administration, one of which reads in part https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/a…accountabl
https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/a…ccountable
“Public administration should be transparent and information should be handled as openly as the law allows. Public bodies should give people information and, if appropriate, advice that is clear, accurate, complete, relevant and timely.
“Public bodies should be open and truthful when accounting for their decisions and actions. They should state their criteria for decision making and give reasons for their decisions.”
As I have explained, I cannot comment on the policy itself, save to note that the objective of assisting the police and others in the identification of vehicles cannot be deemed improper or maladministrative. Indeed, quite the contrary. Nor do I think that the presence or otherwise of decals could reasonably be said to change a vehicle’s body shape.
I have also been pleased to learn that the DVLA is seeking long term solutions (that do not involve changing the recorded body type) for customers with converted vehicles. I also commend the introduction of a more collective approach to decision making to try to ensure greater consistency in the outcomes for customers.
However, it seems to me that the DVLA categorisation of motor caravan has fallen behind the times (see for example the many different body types on the camping and caravanning club website https://www.campingandcaravann…motorhome/ https://www.campingandcaravann…motorhome/ Only a minority of motor caravans (both converted and manufactured) now resemble the more traditional design of Winnebagos and similar models.
I am also concerned that vehicles that are to all intents and purposes identical are currently treated differently by the DVLA depending on whether they are conversions or roll off a production line. If the body shape is the same, so should be the body type recorded by the DVLA. As Mr Brown has argued, to do otherwise is an unfairness to private customers.
Conclusions
I entirely understand why Mr Brown has pursued his complaint so diligently, and am unhappy with the lack of openness that has characterised the much more stringent application of the DVLA’s policy on the registration of body type. I am also concerned by the apparent inconsistency in the treatment of converted and production-line vehicles. But given that my jurisdiction excludes DVLA policy, I can only part uphold Mr Brown’s complaint.
I fear that I also cannot assist Mr Brown directly in having his vehicle’s body type changed from van with windows.
I should, however, quote this extract from a report issued recently by my fellow ICA on a complaint from another customer denied the opportunity of changing the body type of his vehicle to motor caravan:
“The DVLA has told me that as soon as it became aware that there was a problem, it immediately began work on rectifying it with DfT and other stakeholders. I would suggest that the scale and content of customers’ objections to the change in the way the policy has been applied contains lessons for the Agency about future changes it may wish to make to the application of policy, generally. This is not a customer relations success story for the agency. Not for the first time, the impact on customers of changes in the way policy is applied has not been thought about enough in advance by the Agency. The DVLA’s policy team understandably expects decisions to be made consistently but in the real world, once again, it has until recently fallen to customer-facing colleagues and ICAs, after the event, to try and understand and explain decision-making to customers.”
This report now completes my review of the matters Mr Brown has raised, and all stages of the Department for Transport complaints process.
I hope my comments and findings are helpful, and can help bring this matter to a close. However, if Mr Brown wishes, he can ask an MP to refer his complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The Ombudsman would then consider the extent of any further review he considered necessary, in light in part of this ICA review.
Sue's YouTube...
