Summary: Mr V complained the Council did not handle the investigation into an allegation about his conduct as a fit and proper person properly. The Council said it had followed its usual procedure and judged Mr V to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The Council acted without fault in its investigation. We found fault in the Council’s complaint process, but this did not cause a significant injustice. The Council has agreed a remedy to prevent this type of fault happening again.

The complaint

1. Mr V, a licensed taxi driver, complains the Council did not handle the investigation into his conduct as a fit and proper person properly. He says the investigation was biased, that he was made to feel like a criminal and the complaint made against him was false.
2. Mr V says this has affected his physical and mental health and has caused him a financial loss.

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. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

6. I have read the information provided by Mr V and I have made enquiries with the Council and have considered the information it has supplied.
7. I have read the Council’s policy and procedure.
8. Mr V and the Council have been sent a draft decision and I have considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Legislation

The Council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Guide

9. The Council’s guidance says all complaints will be fully investigated. An authorised officer will consider all evidence and mitigating circumstances arising from the investigation. It can refer to a senior specialist advisor if appropriate.
10. Serious disciplinary matters will be referred to the senior specialist advisor in the first instance and at his discretion, to the Licensing Sub-Committee or exceptionally to the full Licensing Committee.
11. The Council will consider the impact of the alleged behaviour on the fitness of an individual to hold a licence and take proper action.
12. Where disciplinary or enforcement action is considered, the licence holder will be entitled to attend a meeting and discuss the allegations and provide mitigating circumstances.
13. Prior to the meeting an authorised officer will provide a written report containing all the information necessary to understand the allegation(s), the relevant sections of the policy, the options available and any other relevant information.
14. The report will be provided to the licence holder at least five working days prior to the meeting.

Council’s Complaints Policy

15. The Council’s policy has three stages:

• Informal Stage – informal resolution of complaint. If this can not be achieved the complainant can request the complaint be formally investigated at Stage One.
• Stage One – Allocated to a Member of Staff to investigate formally. The Council will respond with an acknowledgement within five days. When an investigation is completed, the complainant will be contacted (usually) within ten working days unless there are special circumstances. This should be an explanation of the decision and whether the complaint is upheld.
• Stage Two – If the complainant is unsatisfied, they can escalate to stage two. This usually gives a deadline of 20 working days. The Council will give a clear statement of whether the case is upheld, the issues concerned, any remedy offered and details of how to complaint to the Ombudsman.

What I found

16. Mr V is a licensed taxi driver. He says he suffered injuries during an incident while picking up a fare in March 2020. He reported this to the Council the following day.
17. The Council received a complaint about the incident and the conduct of Mr V. An authorised licensing officer for the Council recorded the incident and started an investigation.
18. As part of its investigation the Council officer spoke to Mr V and obtained a telephone witness statement. It also gathered various witness statements from other people who witnessed the incident. It got CCTV, photographs of Mr V’s injuries, a voice transcript and provided evidence it made several attempts to contact other witnesses.
19. During the investigation the Council had to change the authorised officer. Mr V complained he had previously dealt with this officer and considered they would be biased against him.
20. The Council replied, “now was not the time to be picking and choosing who can deal with the complaint.” It said there was little choice as there were no further suitable officers to carry out the investigation but added that a manager would oversee the investigation and review any final decision.
21. The Council says that it called Mr V in June 2020. It says that it asked if he would like to give a further written statement. It said it provided him with the email address, but no statement was received. Mr V says the Council’s licensing officer was dismissive of his injuries and tried to persuade him to change his account, he felt the investigating officer was biased against him. The Council disputes this. The Council says it provided Mr V with documents it had gathered as part of its investigation.
22. The officer set out the findings of the investigation in a determination report. A senior authorising officer reviewed the report. Due to the serious nature of the incident, it was decided the matter should be referred to the Licensing Sub-Committee to decide on his suitability as a fit and proper person.
23. The officer contacted Mr V and explained the complaint would be referred to the Licensing Sub-Committee for a hearing. The letter told him of his right to have a legal representative and explained the procedure and possible outcomes. Mr V says he complained about the officer and was told that another officer would be presenting and submitting the report to the sub-committee.
24. In August 2020 Mr V attended the sub-committee hearing by telephone. The sub-committee was presented with the Council’s determination report and heard from Mr V. It decided that Mr V was a fit and proper person to hold the dual taxi licence.
25. In January 2021, Mr V complained to the Council and said he was not satisfied with the conduct of the advisor or how the investigation had been handled.
26. The Council replied to Mr V in February 2021. It did not uphold his complaint and said the investigation had been undertaken properly and diligently. It noted that a senior manager had reviewed the investigation and had decided to present the report to the sub-committee for a decision to be made on his suitability.
27. The Council noted that while Mr V felt the complaint made against him was false, it had no corroborating evidence and therefore could not make an assessment if the statement was true or false.
28. To resolve the issues with the officer who undertook the investigation, the Council provided Mr V with alternative names for other officers on the licensing team that he could contact in the future. It said it had also provided feedback and further training to the officer involved.
29. Mr V remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman in March 2021.
30. In response to my enquiries the Council says it did not uphold Mr V’s complaint and found it to be unsubstantiated.

Analysis

31. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
32. The Council has shown that it followed the usual procedure in investigating the complaint made about Mr V. The Council has provided me with documentation showing it had gathered (or had attempted to gather) information and followed reasonable lines of enquiry. It also disclosed the information it had gathered to Mr V before the sub-committee decided if he was a fit and proper person.
33. The sub-committee ruled that Mr V was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Mr V says it was the way the licensing officer handled the investigation that made it stressful. While I acknowledge that any investigation calling into question a person’s character is stressful, and the relationship between Mr V and the licensing officer was difficult, the Council were duty bound to investigate the serious allegations made. The Council followed the correct procedure and the Sub-Committee had before it all relevant information when it reached its decision. To ensure fairness the Council had a senior officer oversee the investigation before presenting the facts to Sub-Committee for a decision. The Sub-Committee found Mr V to be a fit and proper person and therefore he did not suffer any penalty because of the investigation. Therefore, I find no fault in the conduct of the investigation.
34. The Council in its informal complaint response addressed in detail Mr V’s complaint. However, I have seen no evidence that Mr V’s complaint was investigated under the Council’s complaints procedure or that Mr V was given any information about the process or what would happen next. This was fault. The Council should have considered Mr V’s complaint using its complaints procedure.
35. However, although I recognise Mr V did not complete the Council’s complaints procedure, he complained to the Ombudsman in March 2021. A review of his complaint has now been conducted by us and that delivered the same outcome for Mr V as I found no fault with the Council’s conduct. He therefore suffered no injustice. I have however recommended a remedy to prevent a reoccurrence of this fault.

Agreed Action

36. To prevent the same fault occurring again, the Council will by 1 October 2021 share my final decision with all relevant officers as a reminder they should use the Council’s formal complaints procedure in cases like this.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation by finding the Council was not at fault for the way it investigated the complaint about Mr V. However, it was at fault for failing to use the formal complaints procedure and the Council has agreed to remedy the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman