Summary: Mr C complained the Council was at fault for not awarding him a hackney carriage taxi licence, failing to follow its own policy and guidelines and for proposals to place conditions on vehicles that licences could be released to in the future. Mr C also said that the Council did not follow its own timescales when dealing with his complaint. We find no fault with the Council’s decision not to award a licence to Mr C and related matters.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains the Council has not awarded two hackney carriage licences which he says is in breach of its own policy and guidelines. He also says the Council has since added further restrictions on the type of vehicle it will release the licence to. Mr C also says that the Council took too long when considering his complaint.
2. Mr C says this has caused him both mental and physical illness and has affected his earnings. He says he wants the Council to reconsider and release the licence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 read information provided by Mr C. I made enquiries to the Council and have considered the information it has supplied.
6. I have considered the law in this area namely The Transport Act 1985, the Council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy, and the Department for Transport’s Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing: Best Practice Guidance.
7. Mr C and the Council have been sent a draft of this decision and I have considered the comments before making a final decision.

Legislation and Guidance

Taxi Licensing Control of Numbers

8. Section 16(b) of the Transport Act 1985 sets out taxi licencing and control of numbers. It says, “the grant of a licence may be refused, for the purpose of limiting the number of hackney carriages in respect of which licences are granted, if, but only if, the person authorised to grant licences is satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages (within the area to which the licence would apply) which is unmet.”

Council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Policy.

9. The Council restricts the number of hackney carriage licences to 183 licences based on the last unmet demand survey. The Council undertakes an unmet demand survey usually every three years.
10. As the Council restricts the number of hackney carriage licences issued, a waiting list of people who have shown an interest in holding a licence is in place.
11. The person named at number one of the list will be offered the next available hackney carriage vehicle licence provided they meet the current criteria set out in the policy. Paragraph 18.3 of the policy says the Council shall consider all applications on their own merits once it is satisfied that the appropriate criteria have been met and the application form and supporting documents are completed.

Environmental Considerations

12. The Department for Transport guidance asks licensing authorities to consider how their vehicle licensing policies can support any local environmental policies they may have adopted.
13. Paragraph 23.7 of the Council’s policy says, ‘The types of vehicles that new hackney carriage vehicle licences will be licensed to will be determined by the Executive if/when the Council determines to issue new licences.’

Council’s Complaints Policy

14. The Council has a two stage complaints policy:

• Grade 1 – 20 day response timescale – 30 days is allowed for more complex complaints.
• Grade 2 – A full response within 30 working days, if this is not possible the complaint response should be no longer than 3 months.

Back to top

What I found

15. Following an unmet demand survey commissioned in 2017, the Council decided to limit the number of hackney carriage licences it would issue to 183.
16. The Council’s Licensing Committee met online in September 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The main item on agenda was vehicle licences. Members of the committee instructed officers not to conduct the unmet demand survey in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic as it would not reflect the true situation on which to base a decision for the next three years.
17. The Licensing Committee decided to:

• continue with the current restriction on hackney carriage vehicles;
• commission a formal unmet demand survey during 2021; and
• recommend amending its Taxi Licensing Policy to the Council’s Executive. This proposed only releasing licences to fully electric or plug in electric petrol hybrid wheelchair accessible vehicles in the future.

18. Mr C says that between 2018 and 2019 two saloon hackney carriage licences were returned to the Council. This was confirmed at the Licensing Committee meeting in September which acknowledged there were currently 181 hackney carriage licences in operation.
19. Mr C says that he has been on the waiting list for over twenty years and complained to the Council in October 2020 explaining it had not awarded two licences which he felt should be available to the next people on the waiting list reducing the time he may have to wait for a licence.
20. Mr C said the recommendations of the Licensing Committee were unfair. Mr C believes the Council acted in error in not issuing the two returned licences when it had not conducted a further unmet demand survey. He said he felt that the returned licences had already been considered by the Council when it had previously decided to allocate 183 hackney carriage licences.
21. Mr C also objected to the recommendation for conditions to be placed on licences for allocation in the future. He said the proposal to allocate licences to those operating electric or hybrid wheelchair accessible vehicles may disadvantage those at the top of the waiting list. The Council has yet to decide on these proposals.
22. The Council responded in November 2020 under its corporate complaints procedure and said it needed further time to respond. It explained he could have his complaint considered stage two of the procedure due to the delay.
23. Mr C said he wished for the complaint to be escalated and noted that he was not satisfied with the chosen reviewing officer who he said he had previously complained about.
24. The Council responded in December 2020 combining both its stage one decision and further considering his complaint at stage two of the complaints’ procedure. It apologised for the time taken to review Mr C’s complaint. However, it said that both officers and members had concluded that there was no significant unmet demand, and therefore no new licences would be issued. It explained that it found that licensing officers had acted in accordance with both the licensing policies and in accordance with decisions made by the Licensing Committee and Executive and so did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.
25. In December 2020, as the complaint had gone straight to stage two, the Council again considered Mr C’s complaint and confirmed it was not upheld.
26. Mr C complained to the Ombudsman in December 2020.

Analysis

Policy

27. Mr C is aware that two saloon plate hackney carriage licences have been returned to the Council. On reading the policy, he believes that the people on the top of the waiting list should be offered the next available licences. However, the policy does allow the Council to place restrictions on hackney carriage licences, but only if the decision maker is satisfied there is no significant unmet demand. The Department for Transport’s guidance says best practice is for councils not to impose restrictions on issuing hackney carriage licences. It also urges it to regularly reconsider whether the restrictions are needed.
28. I acknowledge the Council’s policy gives the impression when a hackney carriage licence is surrendered the next person on the list will be offered that licence. It uses the words ‘will be offered’. However, that should be read in the context of the whole policy which allows the Council to consider the current eligibility criteria before doing so.
29. The Council has considered whether there is currently any unmet demand before it issues one of the licences. The Council has acknowledged it is required to complete a current unmet demand survey before deciding if it needs to amend the number of licences it will issue. It explains that it will complete a further survey in 2021. It has debated and looked at the advantages and disadvantages of quantity restrictions and although it has used the 2017 unmet demand survey, it is satisfied there is currently no unmet demand for hackney carriage licences. This is in line with its duty to review unmet demand and within its discretionary powers. Therefore, I find that the Council has not acted with fault in withholding those licences until that review is complete.

Type of hackney carriage to be licensed in the future

30. At the Licensing Committee meeting held in September 2020, the Council proposed recommending to the Executive amending the Taxi Licensing Policy to consider the type of vehicle it will issue a licence to in the future, namely fully electric wheelchair accessible vehicles and plug in electric petrol hybrid wheelchair accessible vehicles.
31. Mr C says he feels the proposed amendment is unaffordable and restricts persons on the waiting list who do not own or cannot afford such vehicles.
32. While I understand Mr C’s objection to the proposals of who should qualify, the Council has yet to reach a decision on the recommended proposals and therefore I cannot comment further.

Delay

33. While the Council has acknowledged there has been delay in dealing with Mr C’s complaint, it has apologised for this fault, and I do not find this has caused any significant injustice to Mr C that requires further remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

34. The Council was not at fault in its decision not to award a licence to Mr C and I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman