Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the revocation of a hackney carriage license. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation and Mr Y has a right of appeal to the magistrates court.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council has revoked his vehicle’s hackney carriage license following a police incident, which he says he has no knowledge of.
2. Mr Y says this has affected his mental health and he is unable to work as a result of the Council’s action, causing him financial difficulties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y is a taxi driver. His taxi driver’s license was recently revoked following a police incident. He has been in the process of appealing this decision.
7. Following a further incident of a similar nature, which Mr Y says he has no knowledge of, police issued a Community Protection Warning (CPW) to Mr Y. Mr Y signed the CPW document, confirming receipt of it in August 2020.
8. The Council then wrote to Mr Y asking him to attend an online meeting to discuss the CPW in January 2021. Mr Y declined the meeting. The Council decided to revoke Mr Y’s vehicle’s hackney carriage license and wrote to Mr Y to explain this in February. Mr Y was unhappy with the decision and asked us to investigate.

Analysis

9. Mr Y has a right to appeal the Council’s decision to revoke his vehicle’s hackney carriage license with the magistrates court. If Mr Y is on a low income, as he has suggested, he can apply to HM Court and Tribunal Service for help toward court fees. As Mr Y has a right to appeal, it is reasonable to expect him to use this right and take the matter to court.
10. Further, the decision set out to Mr Y in February 2021, shows the Council has considered the information it had available. This did not include information from Mr Y as he declined the meeting the Council had offered in January 2021 where he would have had the opportunity to provide information had he wished. As the available information was properly considered by the Council and applied to the criteria, including that Mr Y is a safe and suitable person to hold a license, it is unlikely we would find fault. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation and Mr Y has a right of appeal to the magistrates court.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman