Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an increase in taxi licensing fees. It is unlikely we will find fault in the process the Council followed before making its decision to increase the fees.

The complaint

1. The complainant. I shall call Mr X, says the Council:
• failed to follow the principle of the consultation process
• failed to engage with complainants; and
• failed to consider the complaint properly.
2. He says this affected his company and over 400 other licence folders.
3. Mr X wants the fee increases suspended for 12 months.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• the information provided by Mr X
• the Council’s responses to his complaint
• the Report and decision on license fee increase available on the Council’s website
• the statutory requirement for consulting on proposed fee increases

Back to top

What I found

7. The statutory requirement for consultation on proposed increases to taxi licensing fees is set out in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 section 70. This states:

“If a district council determine that the maximum fees specified in subsection (2) of this section should be varied they shall publish in at least one local newspaper circulating in the district a notice setting out the variation proposed, drawing attention to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this subsection and specifying the period, which shall not be less than twenty-eight days from the date of the first publication of the notice, within which and the manner in which objections to the variation can be made.”

“(b) A copy of the notice referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall for the period of twenty-eight days from the date of the first publication thereof be deposited at the offices of the council which published the notice and shall at all reasonable hours be open to public inspection without payment.”

8. I have not seen any evidence to suggest the Council failed to follow the statutory requirements on consultation.
9. The proposed fee increase was included in the Council’s consultation in November 2020 on its Budget proposals for the financial year started April 2021.
10. The report prepared on the proposed taxi license fee increases in March 2021 confirms the specific consultation for taxi licensing ran for four weeks in January/February 2021. Mr X commented on the proposals and the Council report confirmed the Council received a petition signed by 124 people against the proposed increase. The report included a summary of the comments received.
11. According to the Council’s scheme of delegation, the Director of Community Services considered the report. She decided to accept the recommendation to increase the fees. An explanation of the factors she considered is available on the Council’s website. This shows she considered Mr X’s comments and the comments by other’s who signed the petition. However, she noted:
• the 3% increase is being applied to all Council fees for 2021/22, not just for taxi licensing
• the increase for individual tax divers is roughly £20 per year which she did not consider a significant amount; and
• in recognition of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council has already agreed a concession for taxi and public hire vehicles drivers by deferring the introduction of new vehicle standard requirements by a year.
12. We are not an appeal body, and we cannot criticise decisions taken without fault. The evidence I have seen shows the Council followed the proper consultation process and considered the objections and comments it received. It is for the Council to decide what weight should be given to the comments. The decision to increase the licensing fees is one the Council was entitled to take.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint. From the information I have seen, we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council carried out the consultation and its subsequent decision to increase the taxi licensing fees by 3%.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman