Summary: The Council is not at fault for referring the suspension of Mr Y’s taxi driver’s licence to the Licensing Sub-Committee to consider and for not reimbursing the fees for the drivers and vehicle licences during the period of Mr Y’s suspension. Mr Y did not incur increased legal fees as a result of fault by the Council. The Council delayed in refunding the fee of £67 for an unnecessary operator’s licence but this did not cause significant injustice to Mr Y to warrant a remedy from the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of Mr Y. He complains that the Council:
1. informed him that it would lift Mr Y’s taxi licence suspension following the conclusion of a court case against him but delayed in doing so as it referred the matter to its licensing committee for consideration. As a result Mr Y paid for licences he could not use and incurred unnecessary legal fees.
2. Will not reimburse the cost of licences Mr Y could not use during the period of suspension.
3. Delayed in dealing with his correspondence and his complaint.
4. Delayed in reimbursing £67 for an operator licence Mr Y did not need
5. Provided incorrect information to the Licensing Sub-Committee as it misreported what Mr Y said in his police interview and wrongly said Mr Y had admitted inappropriate behavior. Mr Y considers that as a result, he incurred increased legal fees as his solicitor had to challenge the accuracy of the report.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated events from April 2018 when Mr X notified the Council that the court case against Mr Y had concluded and he had been cleared of the charges.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have:
• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
• Discussed the issues with Mr X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Mr X and the Council to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. By law drivers of hackney carriages or private hire vehicles must have a licence by the licensing authority. In this case the licensing authority is the Council. The Council grants dual licence to operate as a hackney carriage or private hire driver and this licence lasts for a period of three years. When granting licences the Council considers if the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence. The Council will also use this test if considering a change of circumstances which could affect a person’s licence.
9. The Council also issues vehicle licences to allow a vehicle to be used as a hackney carriage or for private hire. These licences are granted for 12 months from 1 May to 30 April each year. The Council requires vehicle presented for new licences to be under four years old.

What happened

10. Mr Y is a taxi driver. The Council granted a dual driver’s licence to him to operate as a hackney carriage driver. In 2017 the Police notified the Council of allegations made against Mr Y. The Council suspended Mr Y’s driver’s licence on the evidence before it. The Council notified Mr Y of the decision by letter which also informed him of his right to appeal against its decision to the Magistrates Court. I refer to this information by way of background as I have not investigated the suspension of Mr Y’s licence.
11. Due to the age of Mr Y’s vehicle he would not be able to re-licence it as a hackney carriage if it came off the Council’s list of licenced vehicles. Mr Y rented his hackney carriage licence to another driver. The Council advised Mr X to change his licence to a private hire licence to ensure his vehicle could remain on the Council’s list of licensed vehicles. Mr Y then suspended the vehicle licence due to the suspension of his driver’s licence.
12. The Council advised Mr Y to apply for an operator’s licence which cost £67. However, Mr Y did not require an operator’s licence as he did not want to work as a private hire driver.
13. The Police charged Mr Y and his case was due to be heard in court. Mr X contacted the Council by telephone on 19 April 2018 to notify it of Mr Y’s acquittal. Mr X says officer A, licensing officer, told him during the call that the suspension of Mr Y’s licence would be lifted. In an email to the Council’s solicitor officer A disputes he told Mr X the suspension would be lifted. The Council did not record the telephone call.
14. On 19 April Mr Y also sent an email to the Council advising the court case against him had collapsed, complaining about the Council’s decision to suspend his licence and seeking compensation. Mr Y also sought advice on how he could retain his vehicle on Council list as he had rented his hackney licence and the licences were due for renewal. A few days later Mr X sent an email to the Council seeking advice on renewing Mr Y’s licences. In his email Mr X referred to receiving verbal advice that Mr Y’s suspension had been lifted.
15. On 26 April, the Council wrote to Mr Y advising that his request for his suspension to be lifted would be considered by the Licensing Sub-Committee. In the letter it explained that the Council had to consider if Mr Y was a fit and proper person to hold a licence and this was not limited to whether a driver had criminal convictions. The Council invited Mr Y to submit information for Licensing Sub-Committee. It also outlined Mr Y’s options for renewing his licence.
16. The Council’s letter of 26 April also responded to the issues raised by Mr Y in his complaint of 19 April 2018. The Council advised Mr Y to make a claim to its claims department if he considered he had a monetary claim against the Council.
17. In response to my enquiries the Council has said it referred Mr Y’s suspension to the Licensing Sub-Committee as a matter of good practice. In cases where allegations are made but not pursued or the driver has been found not guilty the Council will review the information obtained by the Police or other investigations to determine if the driver is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Referral to the Licensing Sub-Committee provided Mr Y and the Council’s licensing team with the opportunity to provide evidence and information to the Sub-Committee for it to determine if Mr Y was a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
18. Mr Y applied for the annual renewal of his licence for a private hire vehicle to enable his vehicle to remain on the Council’s list. Mr Y also applied for the operator’s licence which was not required.
19. Mr Y appointed a solicitor who submitted comments to the Council on 17 May. The comments included that Mr Y only faced on charge and his suspension relied on incorrect facts, namely that he had admitted inappropriate behaviour. Mr Y had not made such an admission.
20. The Council issued a report to the Licensing Sub-Committee setting out what had led to Mr Y’s suspension, that he had been charged with one offence and subsequently acquitted. The report included several appendices including the email from the Police notifying the Council of the allegations against Mr Y and Mr Y’s solicitor letter of 17 May stating Mr Y had not made any admissions. The appendices also included redacted transcripts from the Police interviews with Mr Y. The Council sent a copy of the report to Mr Y’s solicitor.
21. Two days before the hearing, Mr Y’s solicitor sent a letter to the Council. Mr Y’s solicitor considered details of the second allegation should be removed from the Committee report as the Police did not take further action. The Council discussed the matter with a legal advisor who advised that the report referred to evidence received by the Council so would not be redacted prior to the hearing. The Council also advised Mr Y’s solicitor could make representations on the matter at the hearing.
22. The Licensing Sub-Committee considered Mr Y’s suspension and decided to reinstate his licence subject to an additional condition and a formal warning. The Council has said it notified Mr Y of the decision on the day of the Sub-Committee. It sent the formal notice of the decision on 14 June.
23. Mr X contacted the Council in June. In his email Mr X requested the Council keep Mr Y’s private hire licence in suspense and that Mr Y’s hackney carriage licence was rented to another driver.
24. During May, June and July Mr X made a subject access request, asked the Council to comment on an article he intended to write about the matter and made a compensation claim. Mr X has said the Council advised it would deal with the compensation claim within 30 days. On 6 July the Council refused his claim. It said the fee paid was for the grant of the driver licence and it was not refundable. The Council agreed it should not have asked Mr Y to pay for an operator’s licence. It refunded the fee of £67 for one operator’s licence to him in July. The Council eventually refunded the fee for the second operator’s licence in December 2018. It has acknowledged the delay in processing the refund.
25. Mr X made a complaint in August 2018 that officer A told him the suspension would be immediately lifted. The Council considered Mr Y’s complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure. The Council’s complaints procedure provides a response should be issued within 10 working days. The Council responded in 18 working days. It acknowledged that it had not properly logged Mr X’s complaint which delayed its response. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint about officer A.
26. In September 2018 Mr Y requested his complaint be escalated to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council acknowledged it delayed in responding to Mr Y’s complaint at stage one. It did not uphold the remainder of the complaint.

My assessment

Did officer A tell Mr X that Mr Y’s suspension would be lifted

27. Mr X has said officer A told him Mr Y’s suspension would be lifted during their telephone call of 19 April. Officer A has said he did not. The call between officer A and Mr X was not recorded and there is no other evidence to substantiate Mr X or officer A’s account of the call. So, I cannot know what officer A told Mr X. I therefore cannot come to any view on whether there is fault by the Council.

Council’s decision to refer Mr Y’s suspension to the Licensing Sub-Committee.

28. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to refer Mr Y’s suspension to the Licensing Sub-Committee. The Council, as the licensing authority, had to decide if there was any evidence arising from the Police investigation which could call into question whether Mr Y was a fit and proper person to hold a driver licence. It is for the Council to decide how best to do this. The Council has explained why it referred the matter to the Licensing Sub-Committee, namely it considers this to be good practice and allows all parties to present their case. So I am satisfied there is no evidence of fault here. I therefore cannot recommend the Council reimburses Mr Y’s legal fees which he incurred in preparation for the Licensing Sub-Committee.
29. Mr X notified the Council of Mr Y’s acquittal on 19 April. The Council made its decision to refer Mr Y’s suspension to the Licensing Sub-Committee on 26 April and notified Mr Y by letter on the same day. Mr X considers the time taken by the Council to issue the letter was excessive as Mr Y urgently required advice on his licensing options. But it would inevitably take time for the Council to decide how to deal with the matter and I do not consider the time taken was excessive.

Licensing Sub-Committee report

30. Mr X and Mr Y are unhappy with the Council’s decision to include the email from the Police detailing the allegations against him and stating he admitted to improper behaviour. Mr Y’s position is that he did not admit inappropriate behaviour.
31. In the report the Council referred to the content of the Police’s email, including that Mr Y had made admissions, when explaining the background and it reasons for the suspension. The Council is not at fault for including the Police’s report that Mr Y had admitted inappropriate behaviour as that was a reason for its decision to suspend Mr Y’s licence. The Council included Mr Y’s solicitor’s letter as an appendix to the Committee report so the Sub-Committee was aware Mr Y denied that he admitted inappropriate behaviour. The Council also included the transcripts from the Police interviews so the Sub-Committee could see what Mr Y had said. The Council sought legal advice on whether it should redact the Police’s email regarding the second allegation following further contact from Mr Y’s solicitor. The Council’s decision not to redact it is in accordance with the legal advice. So, the Council is not at fault for including the Police’s email, referring to the second allegation and referring to the Police’s view that Mr Y had admitted inappropriate behaviour.
32. Mr X has raised a number of issues in response to my draft decision including the Council did not include Mr Y’s solicitor’s letter requesting the redaction of information in the Committee report or submit his emails raising inaccuracies to the Committee. Mr X has also said the Committee report was inaccurate. Mr X says these issues caused Mr Y’s solicitor to increase his fees and attend the hearing.
33. On balance, I cannot conclude this is the case. I understand why Mr Y would want to seek legal advice but this decision was not caused by fault by the Council. I note Mr Y had instructed the solicitor before the Council issued the report so Mr Y would always have incurred legal fees. Mr Y could raise his concerns about the accuracy of the report and the decision to include details of the second allegation at the Committee as part of his case for why he was a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence. Furthermore, it was Mr Y’s decision to be represented at the hearing. So, I cannot conclude Mr Y incurred increased legal fees as a result of fault by the Council.
34. The Licensing Sub-Committee made its decision to lift the suspension of Mr Y’s licence on 31 May but the Council did not send the notification letter to Mr Y for a further fortnight. While it would have been better for the Council to have sent the letter sooner, the time taken is not so excessive as to amount to fault. Mr X has said the delay prevented Mr Y from working. But Mr Y did not return to taxi driving so even if there was fault by the Council, I cannot conclude it caused injustice to Mr Y.

Reimbursement for licences Mr Y could not use and delay in refunding fee for operator’s licence

35. Mr Y considers the Council should reimburse the cost of his licence for the period he was suspended and the vehicle licences granted during the period of his suspension. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to refund a portion of the fee paid by Mr Y for his three year driver licence while he was suspended. The fee is paid for the grant of the licence so the Council was not obliged to refund it while Mr Y was suspended.
36. The Council is also not at fault for not refunding the cost of the vehicle licences which Mr Y applied for while suspended. This is because Mr Y chose to apply for the vehicle licences to ensure he could use his vehicle as a hackney carriage if the Council lifted the suspension and to enable him to use it for personal use. Furthermore, Mr Y applied for the licence in the knowledge he could not work as a taxi driver due to the suspension of his driver licence.
37. Mr X has said Mr Y would not have applied for licences if he had known his case would have to be considered by the Licensing Sub-Committee. But neither the Council or Mr Y could have known at that point what the outcome of the court case would be and whether it would be necessary for the Licensing Sub-Committee to consider his licence. It was appropriate for the Council to advise Mr Y to apply for the vehicle licences at that time to ensure it remained on the Council’s list.
38. Mr X has said the Council did not process the vehicle licences for 2017/18 until April 2018 so it should refund the cost. Mr Y had to pay the licence fee to ensure he could retain his vehicle on the Council’s list. So irrespective of when the Council processed the licence in 2017/18, Mr Y had to pay a fee for the licence. It did not grant the licences for 2018/19 as Mr Y asked the Council not to proceed with the application. This may mean Mr Y’s vehicle cannot be retained on the Council’s list if he does not proceed with the application.
39. The Council has acknowledged that Mr Y did not need an operator’s licence. It refunded the fee of £67 for one licence. It has also acknowledged it delayed in refunding the fee for the second operator’s licence. But this delay did not cause significant injustice to Mr Y to warrant a remedy from the Council.
40. Mr X has said that an officer advised Mr Y that he could apply to the Licensing Sub-Committee for it to consider if it would depart from policy and allow his vehicle to remain licensed while he was suspended so Mr Y would not need to apply for the private hire licence. Mr X considers the Council should now exercise its discretion and refund the licences. Mr Y has said he did not apply to the Sub- Committee at the time as it could not be convened before his licences expired. He considers the Council should have advised him to apply to the Sub Committee and then refund the licences. I will not pursue this matter further as I cannot know, on balance, if the Sub-Committee would have allowed Mr Y’s vehicle to remain licensed during his suspension.

Delay in dealing with Mr Y’s complaint and correspondence

41. Mr X considers the Council did not respond to Mr Y’s letter of 19 April 2018. The Council’s letter of 26 April 2018 broadly dealt with the issues raised by Mr Y and advised him to make a claim for compensation to its claims department. So I consider the Council did respond to Mr Y’s letter of 19 April. Mr X made a claim in late May which the Council responded to on 6 July. The response was not within 30 working days but the delay was minimal and it does not amount to fault. Furthermore, the delay would not cause significant injustice to Mr Y.
42. Mr X also considers the Council should not have required Mr Y to have made a separate claim from his complaint. I am not clear why the Council wanted to treat the claim and complaint separately but I will not investigate the matter further. Mr Y may have been caused a degree of frustration by having to pursue two different processes. But this is not significant enough injustice to warrant pursuing the matter further.
43. The Council has acknowledged it delayed in dealing with Mr Y’s stage one complaint as it did not properly log the complaint. It issued the response within 19 working days which exceeded its target timescale of 10 working days. This is not so excessive as to be fault. The Council responded to Mr Y’s stage two complaint within its target timescale of 30 working days.

Back to top

Final decision

44. The Council is not at fault for referring the suspension of Mr Y’s taxi driver’s licence to the Licensing Sub-Committee to consider and for not reimbursing the fees for the drivers and vehicle licences during the period of Mr Y’s suspension. Mr Y did not incur increased legal fees as a result of fault by the Council. The Council delayed in refunding the fee of £67 for an unnecessary operator’s licence but this did not cause significant injustice to Mr Y to warrant a remedy from the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

45. I have not investigated the Council’s decision to suspend Mr Y’s licence when the Police notified it of the allegations against Mr Y. This is because Mr Y had the right to appeal to the Magistrates Court against the Council’s decision to suspend his licence and I consider it would have been reasonable for him to do so. Mr Y did not appeal as he considered he did not have sufficient information about the allegations to do so. The role of the Magistrates Court was to consider the Council’s decision to suspend Mr Y’s licence, not the substance of the allegations. So this would not have prevented Mr Y from appealing against the Council’s decision to suspend his licence.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman