Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr F’s complaint that it wrongly revoked his private hire vehicle’s licence and the procedures it followed. It failed to keep records, did not give him full details of the allegation and allow him to address it before its decision, and gave him inaccurate and misleading information. There was no fault on his complaint about it delaying hearing his appeal. The Council agreed to apologise to him for the failures, review procedures, and pay him £550.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains the Council wrongly revoked his private hire driver’s licence in 2016 and failed to give him full details of allegations against him; as a result, he was unable to work for 3 months which affected him financially.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

4. Anyone wishing to operate a taxi that is not a hackney carriage, needs a licence to do so. (section 46)
5. A council may grant such a licence to drive private hire vehicles when it receives an application. (section 51)
6. The council shall not grant the licence unless satisfied the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a driver’s licence. (section 51 (1) (a))
7. A council may suspend or revoke a licence on grounds which includes ‘any other reasonable cause’. (section 61(1) (b)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered all the information Mr F sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I was unable to send a complete copy. This was because some of the information needed to remain confidential as it concerned third parties. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr F and the Council.

Back to top

What I found

9. The Council told Mr F at the end of June 2016 it would revoke his private hire taxi driver’s licence. This was because of inappropriate behaviour towards vulnerable young adults he transported to and from college (a ‘run’). He successfully appealed the decision at the end of September. Mr F does not believe it should have taken so long to have a hearing and get his licence back, during which time he was unable to work. He believes his loss of earnings amounted to about £16,000 and he lost the chance to work this run from October which cost him a further £10,200. Mr F failed to provide certified accounts to support this claim.
10. These are the key events in 2015 and 2016:

2015:

• In the autumn, Mr F’s taxi operator told the Council of a report about Mr F’s behaviour towards a passenger he dropped off at a school where she worked. It claimed he made advances towards her during the trip and later called the passenger on her mobile phone (allegation 1). Both Mr F and the operator visited the Council and officers concluded there was a misunderstanding. It took no further action. The Council failed to provide a record of this meeting.

2016:

• In May, the operator again contacted the Council. It said Mr F was under investigation by another council’s Local Authority’s Designated Officer (LADO). The LADO works within each local authority area and provides support for organisations working with children and young people if concerns are raised about anyone working with them. The deputy principal of a college sent a referral to the county’s LADO. This was about comments Mr F allegedly made to a female student in his taxi (allegation 2). The operator removed him from the college run until further notice.
• June: The LADO contacted the operator setting out what other children who had Mr F as their driver said about him. Apart from confirming Mr F sometimes bought drinks, none of the children referred to conversations of a sexual nature. The LADO said the police had no role and asked the operator to take this forward internally. Mr F visited the Council’s offices to discuss the allegation. The licensing officer arranged to visit the school and speak to the original complainant about allegation 1.

Towards the end of the month, the officer wrote to Mr F warning of the intention to revoke his licence as he was no longer a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold it. This was because of inappropriate behaviour towards vulnerable young adults. He had 21 days to appeal. In response, Mr F asked for information about the appeal process and evidence against him. He said he received no details of the allegations nor was he given the chance to respond. He said he would be appealing the decision and was seeking legal advice. He also said while, ‘I confirm my intention to appeal the decision, I do not consider that I am in a position to decide which method of appeal to pursue until I have received your reply’.

In response to my enquiries, the Council explained the officer revoked the licence instead of suspending it. This was because he could still work as a private hire driver pending the outcome of the appeal if suspended. Public safety was important.

• July: Mr F’s vehicle licence expired. The licensing officer replied to Mr F. He said the Council received a report against him in 2015 from a passenger travelling to a school. It also told him about allegation 2 and the college sharing concerns about his behaviour with the LADO. The officer told him a college representative spoke to pupils who confirmed an inappropriate conversation. No evidence of the representative’s discussions with the officer or the children was provided.
• August: Officers met Mr F at his request. Early that month, the officer received an email from Mr F confirming his intention to appeal to the licensing sub-committee.
• September: At the start of the month, the contract for the run was awarded but Mr F was not considered as his licence was revoked. Later that month, the Licensing sub-committee upheld his appeal. It did so because the evidence presented was, ‘insufficient to justify revoking the licence’.
• October: Mr F began working again.

Analysis

11. The Council explained the procedure when investigating this type of complaint against a private hire driver is as follows:

• Gather the initial evidence;
• Contact the driver who is invited to discuss the allegation/complaint;
• During the meeting, the driver is told about the possible outcomes when the investigation is concluded which includes warnings to revocation;
• The driver’s response at the meeting is compared to the complaint/allegation;
• The driver’s file is checked for any previous complaints/allegations;
• A statement of facts with recommendations is prepared and sent to the senior licensing officer for comments/recommendations; and
• This statement is then given to the Chief Environmental Health Officer to consider what action is needed.

12. The Council confirmed that during this investigation, the senior licensing officer who normally oversaw investigations was on long term sick leave.
13. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. There is no evidence the officer properly investigated allegation 1 when made aware of it in 2015. In the absence of evidence from the complainant who made the allegation, it is difficult to see how the officer reached the decision that the incident was a ‘misunderstanding’ without having both versions of events. Nor is there a record of the meeting the officer had with the operator and Mr F when they came to the offices to discuss the complaint. This is fault.

I am not satisfied this caused Mr F an injustice because no further action was taken against him at the time about the allegation.

2. There is no record of the meeting of 14 June 2016 when Mr F visited the offices to discuss allegation 2. This is fault.
3. The officer met the complainant who made allegation 1. While there was a file note of the meeting, the officer failed to prepare a statement for the complainant to sign. This would have been direct evidence. It would have potentially carried greater weight than the note. The note also failed to record the dates/times of when the incidents took place. These failures are fault.
4. There is no evidence the officer put all the evidence he gathered to Mr F to allow him to answer the allegations before the officer made the decision to revoke the licence. There was no meeting with him to discuss the evidence and so his account could not be compared with those set out in the allegations. This did not follow procedure. This is fault.
5. No statement of facts was prepared and sent to the senior licensing officer or to the Chief Environmental Health Officer. In the senior officer’s absence, there is no evidence of alternative arrangements for checking the statement and making recommendations. This is fault.
6. The letter sent to Mr F stated the Council intended to revoke his licence. He had 21 days to appeal the decision. Although a relatively minor point, for the sake of clarity, the letter should have stated at the start that his licence had been revoked.
7. More fundamentally, the letter gave only brief details about the allegations against him. It gave one line general descriptions, a reference to conversations of a sexual nature, buying drinks on the runs, and safeguarding. While it informed him about his right to appeal, it failed to provide copies of evidence the Council considered when reaching the decision or explain he could obtain copies.
8. In his email to Mr F in early July, the officer said the college representative spoke to pupils who confirmed an inappropriate conversation. There is no evidence in support of this statement. The email from the LADO in June listed what children had said. None of the entries referred to an inappropriate conversation. The officer did not send him copies of the evidence obtained against him. I conclude this statement was inaccurate and misleading.
9. Mr F replied by email towards the end of the month, unhappy with the lack of information about the allegations and the failure to allow him to respond earlier. His email confirmed he would appeal but he could not say whether he would do so through the courts or through the licensing sub-committee.
10. The officer only obtained Mr F’s version of events on 3 August during a meeting in the office when the complaints against him were set out. This should have been done earlier. This is fault.
11. During this meeting, Mr F asked whether it was worth appealing to the committee. The following day, he emailed to confirm he would appeal the decision to the committee. The hearing took place about 8 weeks later. The Council confirmed once told, officers needed to organise the hearing, book rooms, contact members of the committee, and check the availability of the legal and licensing team. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied the time taken to arrange the hearing from receiving Mr F’s confirmation in August amounted to fault. In reaching this conclusion, I have taken account of the fact that August is a popular month for taking summer holidays.
2. I am satisfied the fault identified caused Mr F an avoidable injustice. This includes distress: the lost opportunity to put his version of events before the decision was taken and the stress, inconvenience, uncertainty of not knowing whether his licence would have been revoked had the officer followed procedure properly, and the frustration caused.
3. When considering injustice, I also took account of Mr F’s actions. This included his failure to lodge his appeal against the decision sooner than he did. While I accept he had not been sent full details about the allegation, he could have still lodged his appeal earlier than he did on that very ground: the failure to provide any evidence in support of the decision. This could have resulted in a hearing earlier than September.
4. I consider Mr F suffered some loss of earnings over a period of about 1 month because of the fault. It took the Council 2 months to arrange the appeal hearing and it is reasonable to assume it would have taken a similar amount of time had he appealed when made aware of the decision in June. This means his appeal could have been held in August, a month earlier than it was held. Mr F’s claim he lost out on the bid for the run is speculative as there was no guarantee he would have succeeded. In addition, had he appealed earlier, it is likely he would have been able to make a bid.

Agreed action

17. I considered our guidance on remedies.
18. The Council will, within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint, carry out the following:
1. Send Mr F a written apology for the failure: to make and retain records and statements; to give him full details about the allegation earlier; to give him the chance to put his version before making the decision; and for the inaccurate and misleading information the officer gave him;
2. Start a review of its procedures, which it will then complete within 6 weeks, to ensure procedures leading to a decision to revoke a licence are followed and the failures found are not repeated in the future;
3. Ensure officers are reminded of the need to make and retain records of meetings and interviews, follow procedure, as well as the need to consider getting a signed statement from witnesses or complainants;
4. Ensure arrangements are in place to cover the absence of the senior licensing officer;
5. Pay £250 to Mr F for the lost opportunity to earn an income for a period of one month; and
6. Pay £300 to Mr F for the distress the fault caused.

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Ombudsman found fault causing injustice on Mr F’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman