Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the handling of the complainant’s taxi driver application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice and because the complainant would have had appeal rights if he had completed the application process.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the way the Authority dealt with his taxi driver application. Mr X wants a refund of his full licence fee.

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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. The magistrates’ court considers appeals about taxi licensing decisions.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the Authority’s response. I got some additional information from the Authority which includes the medical form completed by the doctor in 2018. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

DVLA medical standards

5. Taxi drivers must meet the group two DVLA medical standards. The rules say that someone who has a diagnosis of alcohol misuse cannot reapply for a licence until they can show they have been abstinent, or have had controlled drinking, for one year. If someone has been diagnosed with alcohol dependency they cannot reapply until they can demonstrate three years of abstinence.
6. The fee for a licence is split into two parts. The first part is a general administration fee and is non-refundable. The second part is payable when the licence is issued. The grant of licence fee can be refunded if it has been paid early but the Authority does not issue a licence.

What happened

7. Mr X was a taxi driver. The Authority refused his renewal application in January 2016 on the grounds of alcohol misuse. It sent information which showed the DVLA medical standards.
8. Mr X reapplied for a licence in early 2018. The medical form he submitted in May 2018 referred to alcohol dependency. It said that excess drinking had caused liver disease and that Mr X had abstained for nine months. The Authority indicated it would not grant the licence.
9. Mr X asked for a refund. The Authority said it would withdraw the application if it gave a refund. Mr X repeated his request for a refund which meant the Authority never made a formal decision on the application. It says it would probably have refused the application because the medical form referred to alcohol dependency and Mr X had not been abstinent for three years. The Authority refunded his application fee of £186 and explained he could reapply for a licence in August 2020.
10. Mr X says the Authority took until 2019 to make a decision on his 2018 application. He says he was told he could reapply after one year. He wants the Authority to refund the rest of the licence fee. He says he is owed £409. He has also referred to a loss of earnings.

Assessment

11. I will not start an investigation because there were appeal rights Mr X could have used and because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
12. If Mr X had not withdrawn the application the Authority would have made a decision. If, as seems likely, it rejected the application, Mr X could have appealed to the magistrates if he thought the Authority had wrongly assessed the evidence about his alcohol history. The magistrates would have decided if he was entitled to a licence.
13. Mr X did not complete the application process so did not have the opportunity to appeal. This means that, despite the delay by the Authority in making a decision, it is not possible to say that Mr X has suffered from a loss of earnings. There might have been a case to be made for a potential loss of earnings if he had made a successful appeal. But, as it stands, he did not complete the application process so could not work as a taxi driver. In addition, the medical form said Mr X was alcohol dependent and the Authority had sent Mr X information in 2016 which stated that alcohol dependency needed a three year period of abstinence before someone could reapply. This means the delay has not caused an injustice which requires an investigation
14. Mr X wants a full refund. However, the licence fee is not refundable. The Authority can refund the grant of licence fee if someone has paid it advance but the Authority does not issue a licence. The Authority has refunded the grant of licence fee which is the only part of the fee that it can refund.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not start an investigation because Mr X could have completed the application process and appealed to the court. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman