Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an application for a taxi driver licence. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority and because the complainant could have appealed to the magistrates.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the way the Authority handled his taxi driver application. He says the Authority owes him money.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. The magistrates’ court considers appeals about licence applications.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaint and the Authority’s decision to refuse Mr X’s taxi driver licence. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Taxi driver licence applications

6. Applicants must pay a non-refundable application fee as part of the application process. If the applicant pays the grant of licence fee in advance, then the Authority refunds that fee if the application is unsuccessful. If the applicant pays the application fee and grant of licence fee at the same time, the Authority only refunds the grant of licence fee if the application is refused.
7. The Authority can decide not to issue a licence if it decides someone is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

What happened

8. Mr X applied for a taxi licence earlier in the year. He failed a test and the Authority did not grant the licence. In February the Authority refunded the grant of licence fee.
9. Mr X reapplied. There was a delay in taking the test because the test centres were closed during lockdown.
10. In August Mr X sent emails to the Authority which the Authority decided were threatening. The Authority reported Mr X to the police. The Authority refused Mr X’s application on the grounds that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The Authority told Mr X he had 21 days to appeal to the magistrates if he disagreed. The Authority says he did not appeal. The Authority refunded the grant of licence fee to Mr X.
11. Mr X denies he sent threatening emails.

Assessment

12. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
13. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority. The rules say the application fee is non-refundable and only the grant of licence can be refunded. The Authority has refunded the grant of licence fee so there is no reason to start an investigation.
14. Mr X could have appealed to the magistrates if he disagreed with the Authority’s decision not to grant the licence. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal because the magistrates’ court is the appropriate body to consider appeals about taxi licence applications and whether someone is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
15. Mr X has also complained about the poor service he says he received from the training and test centre. I cannot consider this part of the complaint because it is a repeat of the complaint Mr X made to us earlier in the year.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority and because Mr X could have appealed to the magistrates.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman