DBT Domestic Licensing beta assessment report
DBT's Domestic Licensing beta service assessment report
Domestic Licensing
| Assessment date: | 23/09/2026 |
| Stage: | Beta |
| Type: | Assessment |
| Result: | Amber |
| Service provider: | Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade |
Service description
This service aims to solve the problem of…
• fragmented legacy licensing processes that do not offer a simple, end-to-end digital application journey
• Temporary Event Notice (TEN) applicants being unable to submit applications and payments in one online process
• TEN applications being submitted with incomplete and unvalidated information that local authority teams must chase
• TEN application data not being sent directly into local authority case management systems in a structured format
• manual downloading and re-keying of TEN information creating unnecessary administrative effort
• applicants and local authorities needing confirmation and a PDF record of each TEN submission
• testing the approach in private beta for TENs with Bristol City Council
• needing to gather evidence and learning to inform potential expansion to other licence types and local authorities
Service users
This service is for…
• individuals and businesses applying for Temporary Event Notices
• first-time applicants who need clear guidance through the application process
• applicants with limited digital confidence who need simple language and steps
• experienced licensing professionals submitting applications on behalf of others
• local authority licensing officers who receive, review and process applications
• local authority licensing managers who monitor volumes, turnaround times and objection rates
Things the service team has done well:
The Domestic Licensing service team:
• demonstrated a clear understanding of the breadth and severity of the pain points users experience with the existing TENs licensing process.
• clearly explained how this service fits within the vision for a much wider change programmeand how important it has been to tackle this from an end-to-end perspective. This was particularly helpful for the panel in understanding the context of the pilot and why research and testing has extended beyond the immediate TENs journey already.
• have avoided over-engineering the service for this pilot whilst providing an architectural design suitable for the wider licensing programme.
• co-designed the service with users, policy colleagues and local authority teams, using GOV.UK patterns to create a simpler validated application journey
• is a collaborative, multidisciplinary team that includes product, delivery, user research, performance analysis and development, with strong cross-disciplinary working through shared research, agile ceremonies and established governance. The team received additional support from policy, economics, platform, site reliability engineering and professional communities as well as collaborating closely with local authorities, particularly Bristol, on co-design and technical delivery.
• explained how they work in an agile way through multidisciplinary collaboration, shared backlog, regular ceremonies, co-design and a focused private beta, using feedback and learning to improve the service’s monitoring, security and integration despite not having had a formal alpha assessment.
• tested a focused Private Beta with Bristol City Council to prove that structured application data can integrate with an existing case management system and reduce re-keying
• built accessibility, security and reliability into delivery through an independent accessibility audit, penetration testing, monitoring, automated alerts and reusable infrastructure
1. Understand users and their needs
Decision
The service was rated green for point 1 of the Standard.
Optional advice to help the service team continually improve the service:
● As the work develops, the team could build on its strong understanding of users and the end-to-end licensing process by creating a clearer link between user needs, supporting evidence, design decisions and testing outcomes. Also, documenting whether these needs had then been met during Alpha/Beta testing would be a great way to show why this design was chosen and ideally linking those to any recorded design decisions in the iterative process. This would form a clearer line from evidence, to insight, to design decisions, and then the outcome.
● The team might want to document differences between occasional applicants and experienced users, including needs that are not currently met by the MVP (e.g. templates or save-and-return functionality). This could help preserve valuable user insight and support evidence-based backlog prioritisation as the service develops.
2. Solve a whole problem for users
Decision
The service was rated green for point 2 of the Standard.
Optional advice to help the service team continually improve the service:
● The team spoke in depth about the problem they are seeking to address, highlighting the huge organisational benefits and complexity of the landscape. As the work develops, there is an opportunity to ensure the end user (applicant) benefits are communicated equally as prominently as the business benefits. From the research there were clear pain-points from the applicants that this solution can address so making those more explicit in how the project measures success could show clear connection between the programme’s operational objectives and the problems being solved for users
● The team might want to continue evaluating whether the service supports first-time applicants as effectively as licensing professionals and repeat applicants.
● The team could review post-submission messaging to ensure users understand the status of their application, what happens next, and that submission does not guarantee approval.
3. Provide a joined-up experience across all channels
Decision
The service was rated green for point 3 of the Standard.
Optional advice to help the service team continually improve the service:
● The team could continue to improve transitions between the application journey, payment service and local authority processing stages.
● The team could continue exploring opportunities to reduce the need for users to provide supporting information or evidence through channels outside the service, particularly as future integrations and data-sharing arrangements are developed.
4. Make the service simple to use
Decision
The service was rated green for point 4 of the Standard.
Optional advice to help the service team continually improve the service:
● The team could review whether all eligibility and licensing information currently presented on the start page needs to be shown before users begin the service and might want to test whether some information could be introduced later in the journey or provided through supporting guidance.
5. Make sure everyone can use the service
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 5 of the Standard.
This is amber because:
● The service team explained that its user research had considered accessibility and low digital confidence. However, the panel did not see sufficient evidence that research had includedusers of assistive technology, neurodivergent users, or a range of participants with access needs.
● An independent accessibility audit identified a number of WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA issues.Although the team demonstrated a commitment to resolving the findings, the panel did not see sufficient evidence at the time of the assessment that the identified issues had been remediated and verified.
● The panel identified content-heavy pages, including the start page, containing substantialeligibility, guidance and licensing information. The panel did not see sufficient evidence that the impact of this content on users with cognitive or information-processing needs had been evaluated.
To achieve Green, the team should:
● Complete the remediation required by the DAC audit and provide evidence that the identified issues have been retested and resolved.
● Conduct research with an appropriate range of participants with access needs, including users of assistive technology, neurodivergent users and people with lower digital confidence, and demonstrate how the findings have informed changes to the service.
● Evaluate whether content-heavy pages, particularly the start page, create unnecessary cognitive load, and use the findings to simplify, restructure or reposition content where necessary.
Optional advice to help the service team continually improve the service:
● The team could continue improving error messages and validation so users can easily understand what has gone wrong and how to fix it.
● The team might want to continue looking for ways to make licensing terminology, deadlines and eligibility rules easier to understand, particularly for people who are unfamiliar with the licensing process.
6. Have a multidisciplinary team
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 6 of the Standard.
This is amber because:
● The team does not currently have a dedicated service owner, content designer or interaction designer. The team should define how these responsibilities will be covered and ensure it has sufficient access to these capabilities for the next phase of delivery.
● The team should reduce the continuity and knowledge-transfer risks associated with contractor reliance by documenting key technical and operational knowledge, including service support and disaster-recovery procedures, and agreeing an effective handover approach.
● The team should develop and maintain a resourcing plan showing how sufficient permanent development, design and service ownership capacity will be provided to support supplier handover, onboarding additional local authorities and introducing further licence types.
7. Use agile ways of working
Decision
The service was rated green for point 7 of the Standard.
Optional advice to help the service team continually improve the service:
● The team could build on their existing evidence by documenting how research, performance data and testing routinely inform backlog priorities, assumptions and decisions.
● The team might want to define measurable hypotheses and success criteria for future iterations, including onboarding other local authorities and supporting further licence types.
● The team might want to establish a clear roadmap that remains adaptable to learning and evidence from the Private Beta and create a clear handover plan. This is so that evidence, learning, backlog priorities and ways of working are transferred to any future supplier.
8. Iterate and improve frequently
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 8 of the Standard.
This is amber because:
● The team has demonstrated iterative improvement by using user and local-authority feedback, technical monitoring, security testing and DAC assessment findings to make changes to the service. However, the evidence does not yet show a consistent cycle in which research and performance data are used to prioritise changes, release improvements and measure outcomes, and several significant improvements remain planned rather than delivered.
● The team should maintain an evidence trail showing how user research, analytics, accessibility findings, operational feedback and technical monitoring have informed backlog priorities, service changes and subsequent measures of impact.
● The team should establish reliable performance baselines and routinely use measures including completion, drop-off, satisfaction, validation, transmission and administrative burden to prioritise improvements and assess their impact.
● The team should demonstrate how findings from inclusive research, including research with users with access needs and lower digital confidence, have informed prioritised service changes and subsequent measures of impact.
9. Create a secure service which protects users’ privacy
Decision
The service was rated green for point 9 of the Standard.
Optional advice to help the service team continually improve the service:
● The team could define minimum transport security requirements for local authorities onboarding to the service.
10. Evaluate, monitor performance and measure value for money
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 10 of the Standard.
This is amber because:
● It was unclear whether the definition of a transaction was consistently applied across performance reporting and cost modelling. During the assessment, a transaction was defined as submission of a digital application. However, the end-to-end service continues through local authority validation, API integration and final licensing decisions. This creates uncertainty regarding the validity of cost per transaction calculations.
● Limited evidence was provided to demonstrate that the current cost per transaction methodology reflects the full cost of delivering and operating the service. Assessment discussions focused primarily on local authority costs and efficiencies, while it was mentioned that DDaT delivery costs, hosting, technical support and ongoing operational costs hadn’t been incorporated.
● Further evidence is required to demonstrate that the reported reduction in administrative burden is robust and repeatable. Whilst the team has undertaken analysis to estimate benefits, the figures remain indicative and are based on several assumptions that require further validation as the service expands.
● Whilst the team demonstrated the collection of a range of quantitative and qualitative data sources, limited examples were provided showing how these insights had informed service improvements, prioritisation decisions or roadmap planning during Beta delivery. The assessment panel would have welcomed clearer evidence demonstrating how user feedback was acted upon.
● The team had consulted with a Digital Evaluator to conduct a Theory of Change. However, limited evidence was provided regarding monitoring and evaluation activities, benefits realisation planning or continuous collaboration with evaluation specialists. Whilst a dedicated Digital Evaluator is not necessarily required within the multidisciplinary team, the panel would have expected to see a developing monitoring and evaluation approach at this stage of Beta delivery, particularly given the service’s focus on demonstrating administrative burden reduction and value for money.
To achieve Green, the team should:
● Define and consistently apply what constitutes a transaction across performance reporting, benefits analysis and cost modelling, taking account of the end-to-end journey through local authority processing and licensing decisions.
● Develop a cost-per-transaction methodology that includes the relevant costs of delivering and operating the service, including DDaT delivery, hosting, technical support and ongoing operational costs.
● Validate the assumptions underpinning the estimated reduction in administrative burden as the service expands, and document the evidence, methodology and limitations associated with the calculation.
● Demonstrate how quantitative and qualitative performance evidence has informed service improvements, backlog priorities and roadmap decisions during Beta.
● Develop and document a proportionate monitoring, evaluation and benefits-realisation approach, including how the team will continue to draw on evaluation expertise.
11. Choose the right tools and technology
Decision
The service was rated green for point 11 of the Standard.
Optional advice to help the service team continually improve the service:
● The team could investigate how the service would integrate with payment platforms other than Pay360 that may be used by local authorities.
12. Make new source code open
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 12 of the Standard.
This is amber because:
● The source code is held in a private GitHub repository, in line with the department’s current approach. The team should continue working towards publishing code openly where appropriate.
13. Use and contribute to open standards, common components and patterns
Decision
The service was rated green for point 13 of the Standard.
Optional advice to help the service team continually improve the service:
● The team could document the technical requirements and standards agreed with local authorities to support consistency as the service expands.
14. Operate a reliable service
Decision
The service was rated green for point 14 of the Standard.
Optional advice to help the service team continually improve the service:
● The team might want to document the service-level arrangements between BIST and Bristol City Council, including any agreed service levels, responsibilities and escalation routes.
Next Steps
This service can now move into a public beta phase, subject to addressing the Amber points within three months’ time and GDS spend approval.
This service now has permission to launch on a GOV.UK service domain with a Beta banner. These instructions explain how to set up your *.service.gov.uk domain.