Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s decision that the complainant must make a new application for a taxi driver licence. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains that the Authority will not re-instate his taxi driver renewal application. Mr X wants the Authority to reinstate the application and give him compensation.

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 response. I considered information on the Authority’s website about licence renewals. I also considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Licence renewals

4. The policy says that any driver applying to renew their licence more than three months after the expiry of the previous licence will be treated as a new applicant.

What happened

5. Mr X applied to renew his taxi driver licence. His previous licence expired in December 2018. He says he reapplied within three months of the old licence ending.
6. In March 2019 the Authority wrote to Mr X to say he had not provided enough information about his DBS certificate. It asked Mr X to provide information about the DBS certificate within 28 days. It said it might withdraw the application if he did not provide the information. It said it could not process the application unless Mr X provided a DBS certificate. Mr X says he did not get this letter. I have seen the letter and the Authority used the correct address. Mr X says there might have been problems with the post or that Authority might have failed to post the letter.
7. In May the Authority wrote to Mr X to say it had withdrawn the application because he had not provided the information it had asked for. It said it would reopen the application if Mr X provided the information within 14 days. Mr X says he did not get this letter. Again, the Authority used the correct address.
8. Mr X suffered some bereavements during 2019 and had difficulty family circumstances. He was feeling better in October so chased up the application. The Authority told him it had withdrawn the application because he had not provided the DBS information.
9. Mr X asked the Authority to reinstate the application. He sent the Authority information about the personal losses he had experienced. In response the Authority sympathised with his loss but said it had sent two letters asking for information to which it got no response. It also confirmed that he was required to submit a new application due to the length of time since the previous application expired in 2018.
10. Mr X disagrees with the response. He says the Authority has not made a fair decision. He wants the Authority to reinstate the previous application and pay him compensation for his time and loss of income. He says renewed his licence within three months so it should not be treated as a new application. Mr X has been unable to work since the last licence expired.

Assessment

11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority. It is unfortunate that Mr X did not get the letters. But, the Authority acted correctly by using the correct address and telling Mr X he needed to supply further information and warning him that it would withdraw the application if he did not supply it. The Authority also gave him a chance to re-open the renewal if he supplied the information within 14 days. Mr X says there may have been problems with the post but that does not mean the Authority did anything wrong. In addition, while Mr X has suggested the Authority may have failed to post the letters he has not provided any evidence to support this allegation and it is unlikely the same mistake would have happened to both letters.
12. I appreciate Mr X had a difficult time but he did not contact the Authority until October, ten months after the previous application expired and five months after the Authority withdrew the renewal. The Authority was aware of his circumstances but explained he would have to make a new application due to the time that had passed since the previous application expired. This is consistent with the policy which says that any driver applying to renew a licence more than three months after the expiry of the old licence will be treated as a new applicant. Mr X applied within three months but that application was withdrawn in May and Mr X did not contact the Authority again until October.

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