Summary: Ms X (on Mr Y’s behalf) complains about the Authority’s decision to withdraw the permission given to allow Mr Y to convert his taxi to Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) from diesel. There was no fault in the way the Authority reached its decision, which means we cannot question the decision’s merits. The Authority was at fault for the considerable delay in responding to Mr Y and his representatives about this issue. The Authority has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr Y in recognition of avoidable uncertainty and frustration caused by its delay. The Authority will also remind relevant staff of the importance of timely responses in similar future cases.

The complaint

1. Ms X is complaining on behalf of Mr Y as his representative. Ms X complains about the Authority’s decision to withdraw the permission offered to Mr Y to convert his taxi to Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) from diesel. Mr Y paid a deposit to an LPG conversion company, which was refunded following an arson attack on his vehicle. The Authority said it did not have sufficient evidence to confirm the safety and integrity of Mr Y’s vehicle following the fire. Mr Y believes the Authority has not considered all the information he provided, including two licensing inspections carried out by Transport for London (TfL) approved engineers, which confirmed the vehicle was fit to drive and to use as a taxi. As a result, Mr Y is no longer able to use this vehicle as a taxi and is incurring the unnecessary cost of hiring a vehicle to continue working as a taxi driver, which causes him injustice. Mr Y wants the Authority to reconsider its decision and allow him to convert his vehicle to LPG now and thus extend its life as a taxi.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I have spoken to Ms X and considered the information she has provided in support of Mr Y’s complaint.
6. I have considered the Authority’s response to my enquiries.
7. Ms X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. Mr Y is a taxi driver in London. He registered his diesel vehicle for taxi use from new in April 2005. The Authority introduced a phased reduction in the age limit for the most polluting taxis from 2012 to 2022. This meant that Mr Y’s taxi would no longer be eligible for licensing beyond 15 years (in October 2019).
9. In 2019, the Authority offered a scheme which extended the age limit of diesel taxis that were converted to Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG). The conversion extended the age limit from 15 to 20 years. Taxi owners could apply extend the age limit by the closing date of 31 October 2019.
10. In July 2019, Mr Y contacted the Authority about converting his taxi to LPG. On 22 July 2019, the Authority confirmed Mr Y’s taxi was eligible for LPG conversion and then an extension to the age limit to 20 years. The Authority explained Mr Y would need to ensure the LPG conversion was completed before 31 October 2019, in order to qualify for the age limit extension. Mr Y paid a £500 deposit to an approved LPG conversion company.
11. In late August 2019, Mr Y’s taxi was subjected to an arson attack outside his home. This caused damage to the front right-hand side of the vehicle. Mr Y reported the incident to the police and his insurance provider. Mr Y also cancelled the booking to convert his taxi to LPG and the conversion company refunded his £500 deposit.
12. Mr Y contacted the Authority in late January 2020 to explain what had happened to ask it to consider extending the age limit of his taxi now it had been repaired. The Authority informed Mr Y the deadline for extension applications had closed some time ago (in October 2019) and as Mr Y had received a refund of his conversion deposit, he had essentially withdrawn his application for the age extension.
13. Mr Y challenged the Authority’s refusal to extend the age limit in his case. In September 2020, his solicitor wrote to the Authority to reiterate Mr Y’s circumstances and asked it to make a discretionary decision to accept his extension application for LPG conversion out of time. Mr Y’s MP also wrote to the Authority to ask for help in Mr Y’s case in January and September 2020.
14. On 3 February 2021, the Authority responded to Mr Y, following his solicitor’s and MP’s contact. It accepted the exceptional circumstances in Mr Y’s case and asked him to provide the following information to help it decide if his taxi remained safe and fit to drive following the fire damage and repairs:

• the insurance assessor’s report;
• a detailed repair invoice listing parts and all works carried out to the taxi;
• photographs of the vehicle in relation to the arson attack (before and after);
• Mr Y’s account of what happened during and after the arson attack; and,
• the accident/incident history of the vehicle (in the form of a Hire Purchase Investigation (HPI) check or similar).

15. During February 2021, Mr Y provided the Authority with the insurance assessor’s report, a list of parts invoice, an Royal Automobile Club (RAC) HPI check detailing the vehicle’s accident/incident history, copies of MOT certificates (dated September 2018, October 2019 and August 2020) and CCTV footage of the arson attack.
16. At the end of March 2021, the Authority wrote to Mr Y to explain he had not provided the information it needed to determine if his taxi was still safe to drive. The Authority said it could not grant additional time to allow Mr Y to convert his taxi to LPG and extend the age limit of the vehicle.
17. Mr Y’s solicitor replied to the Authority to challenge its decision. They argued that valid MOT certificates proved the vehicle was still roadworthy and offered for the Authority to undertake further inspections of the vehicle if necessary. The solicitor felt the Authority was being unfair in not accepting the evidence Mr Y had provided.
18. In late June 2021, the Authority wrote to Mr Y and his solicitor to explain it had asked for information about the working order of the safety systems in the taxi and these had not been provided. The Authority explained it did not have enough information to agree an extension in age limit or to Mr Y converting his vehicle to LPG.
19. Ms X brought Mr Y’s complaint to us in August 2020 while he was awaiting the Authority’s response.

Was there fault causing injustice?

20. The Authority was clear about the information it needed from Mr Y about the condition of his vehicle. It does not seem Mr Y has provided this information. The Authority is entitled to reach its own view about what it needs to satisfy itself about the safety of Mr Y’s vehicle. We cannot question the merits of the Authority judgement in the absence of fault.
21. Ms X says the Authority had ignored the information Mr Y had provided. I have seen no evidence of this. It is clear the Authority has considered and decided the information Mr Y provided did not demonstrate the safety of his vehicle. There is no evidence of fault by the Authority in this respect.
22. In response to our enquiries, the Authority has explained that valid MOT certificates for the vehicle do not provide the level of expert assessment or inspection it needed about the safety systems and whether these are working properly in Mr Y’s taxi. The Authority also consider there is insufficient evidence about the state of the vehicle’s chassis following the arson attack. It is not for us to question the merits of this decision based on fairness, nor can we place ourselves into the role of an officer and replace their views with our own. It is however disappointing the Authority does not appear to have made this clear to Mr Y or his representatives.
23. There was considerable delay in the Authority responding to Mr Y, his solicitor and his MP. This no doubt caused considerable frustration, uncertainty and inconvenience to Mr Y. He had to wait over 12 months to receive a meaningful response from the Authority, which is clearly unacceptable. Mr Y was put to unnecessary time and trouble in chasing the Authority’s response (between January 2020 and February 2021) through his solicitor and MP. The Authority needs to take steps to remedy the injustice caused by its significant delay.

Back to top

Agreed action

24. Within one month of my final decision, the Authority has agreed to:

• apologise to Mr Y for the delay in responding to his enquiries and for not explaining why the information he had provided was not sufficient;
• make a payment of £200 to Mr Y in recognition of the distress, time and trouble caused by its delay; and;
• issue a written reminder to relevant staff about the importance of providing timely responses in similar future cases.

25. The Authority will also provide us with evidence that it has completed the above recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation and uphold Ms X’s complaint. Mr Y has been caused an injustice by the actions of the Authority. The Authority has agreed to take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman