Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Authority did not process the complainant’s taxi driver licence application correctly. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority and any injustice is not significant enough to require an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the way the Authority handled his taxi driver licence application. Mr X wants the Authority to re-open the application and pay compensation for the time he has been unable to work.

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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 responses. I got some additional information from the Authority and considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr X’s taxi driver licence expired in November 2018. He has been unable to work since then. In January 2019 he applied to renew his licence. He paid the application fee in March and the Authority started to process the application. The Authority asked him to provide more medical information. Mr X provided some information in June but it was not enough for the Authority to process the application and it requested more information in June.
5. In August the Authority withdrew the application because it had not received the medical information. It said it would re-open the application if Mr X provided the information within 14 days. Mr X says he rang the Authority in August to say he would need longer than 14 days; he says he was told that would be fine. The Authority has no record of Mr X making this call. The Authority finally closed the application in September 2019 because it had not received the information.
6. Mr X sent the medical information in November. The Authority did not process it because it had withdrawn the application. It has no record of passing the information to Occupational Health as Mr X states.
7. The Authority sent two letters, in December 2019 and January 2020, which wrongly gave the impression it was processing the application. But, this was clarified in a phone call on 9 December when the Authority told Mr X the application had been withdrawn in September. The Authority repeated this information on 30 January.
8. The Authority has repeatedly invited Mr X to make a fresh application. Mr X has not done so. Mr X says he will not make a new application, and incur further costs, because he did nothing wrong. He does not accept the Authority withdrew the application in September; this is partly because the errors in December and January, and the wording of some letters, suggest to Mr X that the application was still open in late 2019 and could have been processed. Mr X also says he could not get the medical evidence until November. He has commented that the Authority gave him longer to supply information earlier in 2019 and could have done so in August.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority. The Authority withdrew Mr X’s application because he did not provide the medical information it had requested. It warned Mr X it would do this and it gave him another 14 days to get the application reinstated after it withdrew the application in August. I have seen evidence the Authority finally withdrew the application in September. By the time Mr X provided the evidence in November there was no active application. Mr X could, at any time since 2019, have submitted a new application which, if successful, would have allowed him to work. I appreciate Mr X would have to pay a new fee but there is nothing to suggest this is due to fault by the Authority.
10. The Authority sent two emails which wrongly gave Mr X the impression it was processing the application. But, the Authority corrected this error and made it clear, in phone calls and a letter, that the application had been withdrawn and he needed to make a new application. These were minor errors that have not caused enough injustice to require an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman