Redcar & Cleveland Council (18 017 337)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr D complains the Council prevented him running a taxi business in 2018 and 2019. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault by the Council. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.
The complaint
- The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council delayed issuing documentation and prevented him from running a taxi business in 2018 and 2019.
- Mr D also refers to how the Council handled an operator licence application from a third party (Mr X).
What I have investigated
- I have looked at how the Council dealt with Mr D’s case. I explain below why I cannot consider how it handled matters concerning Mr X.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(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)
How I considered this complaint
- I have considered the information provided by Mr D. I have also asked the Council questions and carefully examined its response and supporting papers.
- I have shared my draft decision with both parties.
What I found
- Mr D says he started running a taxi business in November 2018 through a friend’s licence. He states he booked in cars for vehicle licence renewals on 19 November and the Council delayed issuing the test sheets. He also states the test sheets were subsequently received by a garage and the tests completed. The Council’s records show Mr D did request a test sheet on 19 November and this was generated and posted to him that day. Later that month Mr D told the Council he was no longer using the taxi firm’s operator licence. On 23 November, the Council wrote to Mr D explaining as a result it had decided to suspend all the vehicle licences. The Council asked Mr D for evidence which was not produced.
- In December Mr D attended the Council to collect licence plates. He was told the Council was considering referring his licence renewal applications to the Taxi Panel to consider. The Council also sought to formally interview Mr D. That meeting did not take place and the Council offered Mr D alternative dates into 2019.
- In January 2019, the Council confirmed to Mr D that a licence renewal application had been deferred pending its formal interview with him. On 4 February, the Council met with Mr D. He stated he was not the owner of the company but could not recall the owner’s name or contact details. He denied any wrong doing. On 1 April, the Council issued a suitability of licensed proprietor report. It detailed the complaints and the evidence it had gathered. The Taxi Panel met on16 April to discuss the case and Mr D attended. The Panel decided that Mr D could continue to operate. It noted that had Mr D engaged with Officers the situation may have been prevented and that Mr D had failed to provide the information requested over several months.
What should have happened
- A person running a taxi company must have three types of licence: drivers licence, vehicle licence and an operator licence.
- Where a taxi licence needs renewed the applicant submits an application to the Council in person. They select a date for a vehicle test and the Council generates a test sheet that is posted to the applicant. The applicant then attends a Council testing station with the test sheet. The taxi is checked and if it passes the test a pass sheet is issued. The applicant then presents this to the Council and collects the licence and plates.
- If the Council has concerns about the conduct of a taxi company it can investigate. If it finds a company is operating without the relevant licences it can issue suspension notices. The Council will write setting out the suspension which is this case commenced 21 days from the date of the letter. The Council will usually carry out a formal interview with the person running the taxi company to ascertain whether there have been any breaches. If, following the interview, the Council still has concerns and evidence of possible misconduct the case is referred to the Taxi Panel to consider. The Panel will take account of a report from the Council alongside any evidence from the taxi operator.
Was there fault by the Council
- Mr D says the Council delayed issuing test sheets in November 2018. I have not seen any evidence of fault by the Council. Its records clearly show a test sheet was requested and posted the same day. The Council is not responsible for the delivery of post and so cannot be held accountable for any mail Mr D did not receive.
- Mr D refers to the suspension notices issued by the Council. I have considered all the evidence and am satisfied the Council acted in line with its procedures. Officers have the right to suspend a licence, as the Taxi Panel explained in some detail to Mr D. I appreciate Mr D disagrees with the Council’s decision but the Ombudsman will not question the merits of decisions when the Council has followed the correct administrative process: that applies to this case.
- Mr D also refers to delay by the Council. Again, I do not see evidence of fault. There were delays in this case being progressed but they are attributable to Mr D and not the Council. The Council sought to gather information from Mr D, such as booking records, which were not provided at the time. It also needed to formally interview Mr D before it could reach a view on his case and was dependant on him attending the interview. I consider the Council acted in a timely manner.
Final decision
- I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate
- I cannot look at how the Council handled issues concerning Mr X. That is because Mr X would either need to complain himself or authorise Mr D to act on his behalf. I have no such authorisation and so cannot take this part of the complaint further.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman