Summary: Mr X alleges the Council introduced a change to its licencing policy without consulting with his trade. No worthwhile outcome is achievable through further investigation of this complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to here as Mr X, acts on behalf of a taxi drivers’ association. Mr X says the Council introduced a change to its licencing policy without consultation with the trade. The policy requires taxi drivers aged over 70 to take an advanced driving test very five years.
2. Mr X says the policy requirement amounts to age discrimination. Mr X says the policy is also unfair because drivers have to take the test away from the local area.
3. Mr X also complains that the Council was late in responding to his request for information on the consultation it did before the licence requirement was introduced. Mr X says the information was insufficient and part of it was not relevant to the policy change.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a @council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

7. 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

8. I examined the complaint and background information provided by Mr X and the Council. I discussed matters with Mr X by telephone.

Back to top

What I found

9. The Council’s Licencing Policy Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Services 2019-2022 states:

“When a driver reaches the age of 70 years, a DVSA test or equivalent at advanced level (approved by the Licencing Authority) will be required to be taken every five years…this is order that the authority can be fully satisfied that the driver remains fit and proper…”

10. Mr X says his association only found out about the policy when a taxi driver turned 70 and had to take the test. Mr X complained to the Council that it had not consulted with the trade before introducing the policy. Mr X asked the Council to provide all the information it held on the consultation.
11. The Council provided Mr X with all the information it had under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Mr X now complains that the Council provided the information late; its evidence was inadequate; and part of it was not relevant to the policy change that he questions.
12. The Council says the policy change came into effect in September 2016. It says the policy was introduced following consultation exercises between September and November 2015. It provided the following documents on the consultation exercises:
• Licencing committee meeting minutes of 12 September 2016.
• Email inviting drivers and other operators to a meeting in October 2015.
• An email after the October 2015 meeting which suggested the forum meeting went well.
• A policy review dated 25 November 2015 which states a taxi licencing policy consultation happened in October 2015.
• Presentation slides which the Council says were presented to the licencing committee on 12 September 2016. One slide details changes in policy – DVSA accredited tests – new/drivers over 70 years.
• Cabinet meeting minutes dated 20 September 2016.
13. The evidence provided point to consultation but do not specifically mention the policy change or show how the change was communicated to the trade and the public.

Analysis

Whether the Council consulted with the trade on the requirement that drivers over 70 take a driving test every five years

14. I do not find an investigation by the Ombudsman can now discover the answer to this question.
15. We would not normally look at complaints which are over 12 months old unless there is an exceptional reason. Even then we are unlikely to look at historical allegations because they may be too old for an effective investigation.
16. In this case, it is likely taxi drivers affected by the change in policy would have been aware of the change when it was made five or six years ago. This means a complaint about the policy change would be caught by the time restriction. In this respect, I note Mr X says many taxi drivers decided to retire rather than complain about the policy to the Council and the Ombudsman. This suggests members of Mr X’s group were aware of the change long before Mr X approached the Ombudsman on their behalf.
17. Mr X’s own awareness of the matter being complained about arose within the last 12 months. So a complaint on his own behalf may not be late. However, the complaint still involves actions which took place five or six years ago.
18. The evidence the Council provided suggests there was consultation on changes to its licencing policy. A package of changes were then put to the licencing committee in September 2016. So, I can be confident there was consultation but I cannot be confident in concluding there was consultation with the trade on the specific matter of the driving tests for drivers aged 70 and over.
19. Given the passage of time, an investigation by the Ombudsman cannot establish the material facts in this case with reasonable confidence.
20. I have considered whether there is fault by the Council because it holds inadequate records of the consultation. But I cannot conclude there is fault by the Council in this regard. It is difficult, in hindsight, to now prescribe the information a council should have retained on consultation exercises it holds with the trade or public given the variety of ways in which the exercises are done.

Does the policy requirement discriminate against older drivers?

21. I cannot make a finding on this point given the preceding comments on the lateness of the complaint.

Mr X’s concerns about the lateness and quality of the information the Council provided

22. These concerns are matters for the Information Commissioner to handle if Mr X wishes to pursue matters with that body.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I discontinued this investigation and close the complaint because no worthwhile outcome can be achieved through investigation of this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman