Summary: Mr C says Transport for London was responsible for unacceptable delay in investigating allegations against him while he applied for a new taxi licence. He says this caused him to lose approximately £40,000 in income. Transport for London was not at fault. Mr C did not initially provide vetting information required before a licence decision could be made. Transport for London then took time to investigate allegations of misconduct against Mr C and his claim that such misconduct had not occurred. There was no significant delay and no injustice to Mr C.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr C, says that Transport for London (TfL) was responsible for unacceptable delay in processing his licence to drive taxis in London. He says this caused him financial loss of approximately £40,000. He asks the Ombudsman to recommend that TfL reimburses him.

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 spoke to Mr C. I wrote an enquiry letter to TfL and asked them for information. I considered the information gathered before making a decision.
5. I sent my draft decision to Mr C and TfL and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

6. Those wishing to work as a private hire driver in greater London must first receive a private hire driver licence from TfL. To qualify for a licence, applicants must be in good health and of good character. They must undergo a medical and an enhanced criminal records check. The authority will also consider any other relevant factors.
7. Applicants apply for licences online. Decisions are made on a case by case basis. Licenses last for two years. Drivers cannot carry passengers without one.

Fit and proper person

8. The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 says licensing authorities should grant private hire driver licences only to ‘fit and proper’ persons.
9. Applicants for TfL driver licences must send a completed Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) certificate and a clear photograph.
10. Where a previously licensed driver wishes to apply for a renewal, TfL sends a renewal pack to drivers four months before their current licence expires.

What happened

11. In 2018, Mr C held a private hire driver license issued by TfL. His licence was due to expire in early October 2018. TfL sent him a licence renewal pack in May 2018. Mr C did not renew his licence and it expired.
12. Mr C applied to renew his licence in January 2019. Because his licence had now expired, Mr C would normally have been required to submit a fresh application rather than a renewal request but TfL exercised discretion to allow him to renew.
13. Mr C did not attach a suitable photograph or a current DBS check with his application. TfL sent an ‘incomplete’ letter to Mr C a week after receiving his application requesting a suitable photograph and a DBS check.
14. Mr C provided a photograph two weeks later but did not send the DBS results until early April 2019, ten and a half weeks after receipt of the application.
15. Three days later, the applications team sent a request to its operators and complaints team for Mr C’s full complaints history. This team replied two weeks later saying that Mr C’s previous employer had notified them of two complaints made about him by passengers in 2016. It also revealed that the previous employer had stopped employing him in March 2018.
16. At this point, the applications team suspended the application process. The same day, TfL received an email from Mr C asking for a progress report. TfL told him that the application was being reviewed.
17. Two weeks later, Mr C again requested an update. TfL wrote back saying it was unable to tell him exactly when the application would be complete as it was carrying out further checks.
18. Two months later, in early July 2019, TfL wrote to Mr C asking him to comment on the allegations which had been made against him. Mr C provided his comments two weeks later. He said neither incident occurred as reported. He said he had reported one incident to the employers himself because of inappropriate passenger conduct and that he had given them dashboard camera footage of one passenger to his employer proving that no misconduct occurred. He said he had received an apology from his employer. He told TfL that he had been unaware that his former employer had stopped employing him.
19. In mid-August 2019, TfL contacted the former employer to check these assertions. The employer replied in mid-September saying Mr C had not brought either incident to its attention. It said he had not provided camera evidence and the company had not apologised to him.
20. In early October 2019, TfL considered Mr C’s application. The officer responsible considered the case. He noted that these were serious allegations and that Mr C had provided no evidence in support of his version of events.
21. The adjudicator said that, this being the case, he would accept the employer’s evidence. He said these were ‘concerning’ allegations which TfL had to take seriously in deciding whether he was a fit and proper person.
22. The assessor added that, otherwise, Mr C had not come to adverse attention before. He said that the fact that Mr C had been unable to drive since the previous October ‘can be considered as licensing action taken against the driver’ so said ‘a stern warning is recommended at this time’.
23. TFL issued a licence and a written warning to Mr C the next day.
24. Mr C complained to the Ombudsman about the amount of time taken to process his application.

Was there fault causing injustice?

25. TfL sends private hire driver licence holders a renewal pack four months before the licence expires. This is to allow sufficient time for a renewal application to be processed without the previous licence expiring. I have decided, therefore, to view four months as the starting point in determining whether TfL processed the application within a reasonable time. That is not to say that all applications must be decided within that timeframe. Clearly, some applications will be more complex and will therefore take longer than others.
26. In this case, Mr C applied for a licence in late January 2019. The license was granted in early October 2019; just over eight months later.
27. However, Mr C did not send a suitable photograph or a valid DBS certificate with his application. He did not provide the DBS certificate until early April 2019. TfL could not begin considering his application until then.
28. This leaves a period of six months. I note, however, that Mr C’s previous employer took some weeks to respond to TfL’s original request for information. It then took a further month to respond to TfL’s request for confirmation of Mr C’s claims about the complaints about him.
29. The employer contradicted Mr C’s version of events denying he had provided video evidence or received an apology. TfL then had a difficult judgement to make as to Mr C’s suitability. It decided, on the evidence, to accept that the complaints were justified but to grant Mr C a licence given his otherwise good record.
30. I therefore find there was little if any significant delay in making the decision in this case. If there was any, TfL took the delay into account when making its final decision to grant him a licence subject to a warning so there was no injustice.
31. I do not, therefore, uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have found that TfL was not at fault. I have closed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman