Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s decision that the complainant must take an exam as part of his application to be a licensed taxi driver. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority. For the same reason the Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint that the Authority has not made a refund.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Authority’s decision that he must take a test as part of his application to be a licensed taxi driver. He also complains he has not received a £100 refund.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Authority’s responses. I saw evidence that the Authority made the refund and I considered its policy on when applicants are exempt from taking the test. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Topological test

4. People who apply to be a licensed taxi driver must pass a topological exam. Some people are exempt from the test. This includes people who hold a relevant vocational qualification. The website says, “in some cases we may ask you to sit a topographical assessment in addition to any qualification you have provided.” The Authority’s internal guidance says that if someone has previously failed the topological exam they must take and pass the test – they cannot rely on an exemption.

What happened

5. Mr X applied to become a licensed taxi driver. He took the topological assessment in 2017. He failed. He says this was because someone was taken ill during the exam which was upsetting and distressing. He withdrew his application.
6. Mr X was due a £100 refund. I have seen a screenshot which shows the Authority made the refund to his bank card on 27 March 2018.
7. In March 2018 passed a vocational exam. He obtained a certificate in the Introduction to the Role of the Professional Taxi Driver. In April 2018 Mr X reapplied to the Authority to become a licensed taxi driver. He submitted his certificate and claimed the exemption from the topological assessment.
8. In September the Authority explained that, despite the qualification, Mr X still needed to pass the examination. In later letters the Authority explained that if someone has already failed the test then they cannot reply on an exemption. It said he needed to pass the test. The Authority confirmed it had issued the refund in March and it suggested he contact his card provider.
9. Mr X says he should be exempt from taking the topological exam and the Authority has not issued the refund.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.
11. The policy says that applicants may be required to take the topological exam even if they provide evidence of a vocational qualification. The policy also says that if someone has previously failed the test they must re-sit the test even if they hold a relevant vocational qualification. The Authority’s decision that Mr X must take the test is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
12. I have seen evidence that the Authority issued the refund to Mr X’s card in March. I do not know why Mr X had not received it but there is nothing to suggest fault by the Authority. In addition, there is nothing to investigate because I have seen evidence that the refund was issued.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman