Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to suspend the requirement for taxi drivers in its area to obtain an NVQ qualification. Mr X says his business has been affected financially by this as it had made preparations to be a provider of the NVQ course. We will not investigate as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to suspend the requirement for taxi drivers in its area to obtain an NVQ qualification. Mr X says his business has been affected financially by this as it had made preparations to be a provider of the NVQ course.

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 or continue with 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 have considered what Mr X said in his complaint, the Council’s policy ‘Licensing Policy Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Services’, the Regulators’ Code and information supplied by the Council on 19019963, a similar complaint we have dealt with.
4. I have sent Mr X my draft decision on the complaint for his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X’s company specialises in providing training courses for taxi drivers and spent money on becoming accredited to provide an NVQ qualification which the Council required its taxi drivers to have. Mr X’s company also spent money on an advertising campaign.
6. Mr X says that in June 2020, he wrote to the Council to explain his company had been accredited and could now provide the course. Mr X says he received no reply but some time later, on the Council’s website, saw that the Council had suspended its NVQ policy requirement due to new drivers experiencing difficulties in enrolling on a course and completing a qualification due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr X says the website also said that the Council would be looking to develop an in-house, bespoke training course later in 2020.
7. Mr X is unhappy as he says his company could have delivered the course remotely with no classroom attendance required. He also feels the Council’s decision was deliberately made to prejudice his company. Mr X says this is because he had previously provided advice to another body in relation to a complaint it had made against the Council.
8. Mr X also believes the Council’s decision to suspend the NVQ requirement constituted a significant change to the Council’s policy, the ‘Licensing Policy Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Services’ (policy) and that as such, this decision could only have been made at Full Council and only after consultation with the trade. Mr X feels the decision not to consult also breaches section 2.1 of the Regulators’ Code.
9. The Council says it took the decision to depart from its policy in April 2020 to assist the taxi trade during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its policy allows such departures if exceptional circumstances exist. The Council says that as no permanent change was made to its policy, no consultation was required. The Council has a file note showing how it made its decision to depart from policy in this regard.
10. The Council says it has no record of Mr X’s letter to it of June 2020, offering to provide the NVQ course, so no response was sent. It points out that its decision to suspend the requirement for NVQs was made in April 2020. The Council says Mr X has provided no evidence on which to base his claim that its decision to depart from policy was made to prejudice him.
11. The Council explains that some changes were made to its policy in 2019 including the intention to provide its own in-house training for taxi drivers in the future. The Council says consultation was not required to make these changes as they were minor in nature. The Council’s policy only requires consultation for significant changes to it and defines a significant change as one that:

• Is likely to have a significant financial effect on licence holders or
• Is likely to have a significant procedural effect on licence holders or
• Is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the community

12. The Regulators’ Code at section 2.1 says that regulators should engage with those they regulate, citizens and others when developing their policies.

Analysis

13. There is no indication of fault in the way the Council departed from its policy. The policy allows for departures if exceptional circumstances exist, and it is widely accepted the pandemic is an exceptional circumstance. The Council kept a proper file note of its decision and as the policy was not permanently changed, no consultation was required.
14. The Council’s plans to move towards in-house training does not constitute a significant amendment to its policy and so again no consultation was required.
15. The Council has acted in accordance with its policy around consultation and I do not consider there is evidence to suggest it has acted contrary to the Regulators’ Code.
16. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council’s decisions were deliberately made to prejudice Mr X.
17. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

18. My decision is we will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman