Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council carried out an inspection of Mr C’s private hire vehicle.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about how the Council carried out an inspection of his car, which he planned to use as a private hire vehicle. Mr C says:
• The inspector incorrectly failed the brake pads on his vehicle, which then cost him £70 to replace.
• When Mr C’s care did eventually pass the inspection, his vehicle was issued with incorrect licencing numbers, meaning he had to make unnecessary trips to the inspection centre to get them changed.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and information received from Mr C; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
• spoke with Mr C about his complaint
5. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Vehicle licencing

6. The Private Hire Conditions explain that, before vehicles can be licensed for use, they must be inspected by an Authorised Officer.
7. The aim of the inspection is to determine that the vehicle is in suitable mechanical condition, safe and comfortable. The Council has explained it carries out its inspection to MOT standards.
8. The Government has published Guidance on how MOT inspections should be carried out. It explains that the MOT is a visual inspection, which is done without the dismantling of parts.
9. Upon passing the Council’s inspection, vehicles will be fitted with plates and stickers which display the licensing number.

What happened

10. Mr C had a car which he wanted to use as a private hire vehicle. He therefore arranged for the Council to carry out an inspection.
11. The inspector recorded that the car had failed the inspection, because the front brake pads were worn.
12. Mr C took the wheel off his car in the inspection centre car park. He asked another inspector to view to brakes, who said he would have passed them.
13. Mr C returned home and changed the brake pads at a cost of £70. He returned to the inspection centre and his vehicle passed the inspection and licencing stickers were applied to his car.
14. Mr C arrived home and noticed that some of the stickers were displaying the incorrect licencing number.
15. Mr C drove back to the inspection centre and the inspector confirmed an error had been made with the stickers said he would need to order new ones. Mr C drove back again a few days later and the correct stickers were applied to the car.
16. Mr C complained to the Council. He said the inspector should not have failed the vehicle during the first inspection. He also complained about the incorrect stickers being applied. Mr C said he had spent £70 on brake pads and had made several unnecessary trips to the inspection centre.
17. In its response to his complaint, the Council said it was satisfied it had carried out an inspection to MOT standards and did not accept he should be refunded the cost of the brake pads.
18. The Council did accept it made an error with the licencing stickers and made an offer of £40 to Mr C in recognition of the inconvenience this mistake had caused him.

Analysis

19. The Council carries out inspections to vehicles, prior to the issuing of a private hire licence. It carries these inspections out to MOT standards, which mean a visual inspection is carried out without the need to dismantle parts.
20. During the inspection of Mr C’s vehicle, the inspector recorded that one of the front bake pads was worn. After removing the wheel Mr C showed the brakes to another inspector who said they were part worn. However, this is not the inspection standard.
21. Whilst Mr C may disagree with the original inspector’s conclusion that the brakes were not of MOT standard, it was a conclusion that he came to during an inspection carried out without fault. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault. I therefore do not uphold this element of Mr C’s complaint.
22. Mr C said the mistake with the numbers on the licence stickers meant he had to make additional trips to the inspection centre. Whilst I accept this was an inconvenience to Mr C, I do not consider this to be a significant injustice. I therefore do not propose to investigate this element of his complaint any further.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman