Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s decision not to grant him a private hire vehicle driver’s licence. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use the legal remedy available to him.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the decision not to grant him a private hire vehicle driver’s licence.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

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. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints about access to information. It can issue decision notices requiring a data controller to disclose information.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X applied to TfL as a licensing authority for a private hire vehicle driver’s licence. The process requires applicants to undertake a topographical assessment which assesses:
• ability to use map indexes;
• general knowledge of the Master Atlas of Greater London; and
• ability to plan short, medium and long routes between given locations.
7. Mr X sat the test and TfL says he did not achieve the required mark. TfL has provided Mr X with a summary of the scores he achieved, but he would like more detailed information. TfL has explained examination scripts are exempt from disclosure under data protection legislation.
8. Section 13(6) of the Private Hire Vehicle (London) Act 1998 provides Mr X a right of appeal to the magistrates’ court against a decision not to grant a London private hire vehicle driver’s license.
9. The Ombudsman does have discretion to consider Mr X’s complaint, even though there is a legal remedy available. But I will not exercise the discretion available to me. If Mr X disagrees with TfL’s scoring of his assessment, it is reasonable for him to use the legal remedy available. The Ombudsman also has no powers to rescore Mr X’s assessment. If Mr X believes TfL is withholding information he is entitled to, then he should contact the ICO. It is reasonable for Mr X to do so, because the ICO is the body set up by parliament to consider such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is reasonable for him to use his right of appeal to the magistrates’ court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman