Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in issuing him a private hire taxi licence. He said the delay led to loss of earnings and caused him distress. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed in issuing him a private hire taxi licence. He says there was poor communication and a lack of common sense in what it would accept as proof of his English language abilities. He says the delays led to loss of earnings and caused him distress. He wants the Council to compensate him for loss of earnings and review its procedures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke with him about it on the phone.
5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it sent me.
6. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

7. The Local Government (miscellaneous provisions) Act 1976 is the legal framework for the assessment of applicants and the provision of hackney carriage and private hire vehicle licences.
8. The Act says a council can ask an applicant to provide:

“such information as they may reasonably consider necessary to enable them to determine whether the licence should be granted and whether conditions should be attached to any such licence.”

9. The Institute of Licencing has produced guidance for councils to refer to when they are considering the suitability of licence applicants. It says the function of licencing is the protection of the public and to ensure drivers are safe and suitable to hold a licence. Councils can ask applicants to provide any information, pre-conditions or test they consider necessary to prove to them the applicant is suitable. It lists examples of information some councils require. The list includes spoken and written English tests.
10. North Lincolnshire Council has a policy for the provision of licences for drivers of private hire or hackney carriage vehicles. The Council says it has consulted the Institute of Licencing guidance and used it to inform its policy.
11. The policy says it is the applicant’s responsibility to prove that they are a fit and proper person to hold a licence and the Council will not issue a licence until it is satisfied.
12. The policy sets out its licence application process. With other requirements, it says applicants must complete a safeguarding course, provide an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check and provide proof they can converse, read and write in English. The policy says this may be by producing a qualification such as English GCSE or AS Level certificate, or by attending an English language course approved by the Council. It says it may accept other certificates at the discretion of the authorised officer.

What happened

13. On 5 September 2018, Mr X applied to the Council for a private hire vehicle licence. At the time of application, he paid the licence fee and submitted his completed DBS check application form.
14. In mid-September, he completed the required safeguarding course.
15. The Council reviewed Mr X’s application and supporting documents. It noticed the postcode on the DBS check application form did not match the postcode on other documents provided. It also noted Mr X had not provided proof of his ability to read, write and converse in English.
16. On 24 September 2018, it wrote to Mr X to tell him this. In response, Mr X contacted the Council, who corrected the postcode error and submitted the DBS check application. He said he was a British citizen and had attended schools in England. He took GCSE examinations, but no longer had certificates. Mr X said the Council’s request for proof of his ability to converse in English made him feel humiliated and discriminated against. He requested a meeting with a Council licencing official so he could prove his ability to converse in English.
17. In October 2018, Mr X provided a copy of an exam certificate awarded in 2007. The Council decided it needed more information about the qualification, before deciding if it was acceptable proof. With Mr X’s consent, the Council contacted his previous employer for further details. His employer confirmed Mr X was a previous employee, but said it no longer had records from 2007. It told the Council the format of the exam was multiple choice.
18. About this time, the Council issued a reminder email to staff about what documents were acceptable as proof that an applicant can read, write and converse in English. It reminded staff that it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide proof. It said the certificate must come from the examining body, and not just be an employer certificate of attendance or an email from the applicant of an employer. It said the Council needed to know what the exam or course entailed and whether it proved the applicant could read, write and converse in English.
19. The Council said this reminder email prompted discussion and consideration of possible alternative ways for an applicant to prove their English language abilities. For those who were unable to provide an appropriate qualification, it decided to amend the safeguarding course to include a reading and writing test. The amendments were approved quickly so the additional English language component could be included in the scheduled safeguarding course the following week.
20. In late October 2018, the Council considered the information it received from Mr X’s previous employer. It decided the certificate was not sufficient proof of his English language abilities as the exam was multiple choice. It asked him to provide an alternative qualification.
21. Mr X emailed the Council early the following day. He said he had held many varied positions during his career. He could not have held these positions without the basic ability to read, write and converse in English.
22. The Council says an officer spoke to Mr X that same morning. Mr X disputes this. The Council says the officer told him there was a possibility he might be able to attend the amended safeguarding course with the added reading and writing test that same day. The Council says the officer told Mr X he would confirm this and get back to him.
23. The Council says its officer confirmed the course was going ahead and rang Mr X back, but there was no answer. Mr X says the Council did not ring him at all that day. I cannot know for certain if the Council did ring him, but I have seen the Council’s record of this call. The officer emailed Mr X to confirm the safeguarding course now did have an added English language component and gave him details of the course taking place that day. The email said if he could not make the course, the next one was mid-November.
24. Mr X did not see the email in time and did not attend the course.
25. The next day Mr X contacted the Council and asked it to book him onto the safeguarding course in November. He asked for details of how to complain.
26. The Council officer apologised to Mr X. They advised him he could make a formal complaint if he wished.
27. Mr X complained to the Council. He said he was a British citizen and the situation was preventing him from working. He said he had been due to start work at the beginning of October.
28. The Council responded to say the requirement for applicants to prove their ability to read, write and converse in English had been in its policy since 2017. It said the Council’s priority was to protect the public, not to ensure he was earning a living. It said to progress his application, he would either need to provide an acceptable qualification or attend the amended safeguarding course with the English language component. It gave him the details of the next course mid- November.
29. Mr X sent the Council details of his calculations of his lost earnings. He said the Council should compensate him for the full amount, or he would take legal action to recover the money.
30. In mid- November, Mr X sat and passed the safeguarding course with the added English language component. The Council considered Mr X had now met all the requirements and issued him a private hire driver’s licence two days later.
31. In late November 2018, Mr X complained again to the Council. He complained:
• The situation had cost him nearly £1000 in lost earnings;
• The Council initially took too long to advise him of the postcode error in his application and of the need to provide proof of his English language abilities;
• There was no common sense in asking for proof of English from a British Citizen of mature years, and it had rejected proof from his previous employer;
• He was only emailed about the October safeguarding course on the day of the course, and despite the short notice, the Council had not contacted him by phone.
32. The Council sent Mr X a stage 1 complaint response. It said the requirements were the same for all applicants. It said it had addressed the issue of some applicants having difficulty producing required proof of English abilities by amending the safeguarding course to include a reading and writing test. It said Mr X had now completed the amended safeguarding course and been issued with a licence.
33. Mr X was dissatisfied with this response and escalated his complaint. He said the Council should compensate him for loss of earnings caused by the delay.
34. The Council responded to his complaint at stage 2. It said it could only issue licences once all the requirements were met. It said in Mr X’s case, all requirements were not met until mid-November and the licence was issued the same day. It did not uphold his complaint and did not consider there had been undue delay. It said because of this, it would not consider his claim for loss of earnings. It signposted him to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied and Mr X brought his complaint to us.
35. In response to our enquiries, the Council said over all areas of licencing, it processed over 6000 licence applications a year. It said it was not sustainable to offer individual appointments to applicants so they could prove their English language abilities. It said it has now amended the safeguarding training to address the problem of applicants being unable to produce certificates.

Analysis

36. The law says councils can ask licence applicants to provide any information they consider necessary to help them decide whether to issue a licence. North Lincolnshire’s policy requires the applicant to provide proof they can read, write and converse in English. The policy says the Council will not issue the licence until it is satisfied all requirements are met. The Council’s decision to include this requirement is not fault.
37. It was Mr X’s responsibility to ensure details on his application were correct and that he submitted all the required supporting evidence with his application. Although the Council took 19 days to assess his application and advise of the problems, this is not an excessive delay and is not fault.
38. As proof of his English language abilities, Mr X provided a certificate that was not a GCSE or AS level certificate. The Council’s policy says other certificates are accepted at the discretion of the authorised officer. The Council made appropriate enquiries and decided the certificate was insufficient proof. The Council was not at fault for the way it reached this decision.
39. In October 2018, the Council recognised some applicants had difficulty providing proof of their English language abilities. In response to this feedback, it decided to amend the safeguarding course to include an English language component. The Council responded appropriately to feedback by reviewing its procedures.
40. The Council introduced the changes to the October safeguarding course. During October, the Council was also considering whether to accept Mr X’s certificate from his previous employer. It only decided it was insufficient proof the day before the safeguarding course. Mr X says the Council did not contact him or try to contact him on the morning of the course, but I have seen Council records showing when the Council rang Mr X. When it did not get a response, it sent him an email. The circumstances meant the Council could not have provided Mr X with more notice. It is unfortunate Mr X did not get the information in time to attend the course, but the Council made appropriate efforts to contact Mr X and is not at fault.
41. The Council then acted appropriately by offering him a place on the next course in November. During this time, it was open to Mr X to provide alternative proof. He completed and passed the course, including the English language component, in November and the Council was now satisfied all licence requirements were met. The Council acted in line with its policy by not issuing a licence until this point and is not at fault.
42. Mr X says the Council is responsible for his loss of earnings between October and mid-November. Mr X was unable to work as a private hire driver but as there was no fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s application for a private hire licence, I cannot say the Council is responsible for his loss of earnings.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation. I have found no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman