Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to revoke the complainant’s taxi driver licence. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant appealed to the court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council revoked his taxi driver licence and did not allow him to appeal to the licensing committee. Mr X wants the Council to reinstate the 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 an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. The magistrates’ court considers appeals about decisions to revoke a taxi licence.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaint and the Council’s letters to Mr X about his licence. I considered the 2019 licensing policy and penalty scheme. I also considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council policy

6. The Council can revoke a taxi driver licence if it decides someone is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The Council’s priority is the safety of the public. The policy allows the Council to immediately revoke a licence if it decides someone is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The decision to revoke is made by the Licensing Manager. The right of appeal is to the magistrates’ court.

What happened

7. Mr X was a licensed taxi driver. The police sent the Council a report regarding an incident involving a girl under the age of 16.
8. The Council interviewed Mr X three times. The interview notes show Mr X was accompanied by a solicitor and he was given a chance to present his case. Mr X told the Council the police did not charge him with any offence. Mr X also told the Council the police were investigating the girl for making up the alleged offence.
9. The licencing manager decided to revoke Mr X’s licence. Some of the reasons for the decision include that Mr X had messaged the girl during the day, that he left the girl in a drunk state away from the town at night, and there were concerns that Mr X had taken her near to his home. The Council also had doubts about Mr X’s honesty because the police confirmed they were not investigating the girl for wasting police time. The Council notified Mr X of his appeal rights to the court.
10. Mr X appealed to the magistrates and a hearing date was set. Mr X withdrew the appeal.
11. Mr X says the Council did not allow him to appeal to the licencing committee and he has been denied a fair trial. Mr X has referred to the 2017 licensing policy which says people can appeal to the licensing committee. He wants the Council to reinstate his licence.

Assessment

12. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
13. Mr X appealed to the magistrates. The law says the Ombudsman cannot investigate any complaint which is the subject of legal proceedings. The restriction applies even though Mr X withdrew the appeal. In addition, the magistrates’ court was the appropriate body to consider if the Council was correct to revoke the licence and correct to decide Mr X is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to act as an alternative to the court. And, while Mr X says he does not pose a risk to the public and was an exemplary driver, it is not my role to decide if Mr X is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
14. I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The policy says the Licensing Manager can decide whether to revoke a licence when there are concerns about whether a driver is fit and proper to hold a licence. The right of appeal is to the magistrates, not to the licensing committee. Mr X has referred to the 2017 policy which refers to people appealing to the licensing committee. However, that policy was replaced by the current policy in 2019. Mr X has mentioned another driver who was given appeal rights to the licensing committee. But, that happened before 2019 and it did not raise concerns about whether the driver was fit and proper to have a licence.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not start an investigation because Mr X appealed to the court and could have continued with his appeal. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman