Summary: Mr B complained about how the Council considered his applications for a private hire vehicle licence transfer and dual hackney carriage and private hire drivers licence extension. He said that as a result of the Council’s failings and delays he was unable to work. There was fault which caused injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr B.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant as Mr B. He was represented by Mr D. They complained about how the Council considered Mr B’s applications for a private hire vehicle licence transfer and dual hackney carriage and private hire drivers licence extension. He says that as a result of the Council’s failings and delays he was unable to work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. 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. 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

5. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr D and spoke to him. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr D and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of the key events

6. In March 2020 Mr B submitted an application to transfer a vehicle licence for a vehicle he had just purchased from a Mr X. There was some confusion in the Council’s response. It told Mr B that the licence was ready to collect but also that it could not be transferred because the registration document showed Mr X had already transferred the vehicle to a taxi firm so was not able to transfer it to Mr B.
7. Mr B had a private hire driver licence which was due to lapse in early May. That was the date the Council had established when granting the licence that Mr B’s right to work expired. The Council’s position was that by the time it received all the necessary paperwork Mr B’s licence had already lapsed so it could not be extended. It said that had it received all the information in time it would have been extended to run to November 2022.

Analysis

8. There has been confusing and conflicting responses to Mr B and Mr D about the reasons why the vehicle licence could not be transferred to Mr B. In addition to the issue about whether Mr X, the previous owner or keeper, could transfer the vehicle the Council also referred to whether the vehicle had been damaged and written off. Under the Council’s policy that would also have precluded it being transferred to Mr B. When the Council told Mr B of its decision it did say that he could have the matter considered by committee. Mr B did not take that up and, at that time, Mr D was not involved. A referral to the committee would have been the appropriate way forward to consider the points being raised so I have not, therefore, come to a view on whether the Council’s reasoning was flawed.
9. There was also fault in the way the Council considered Mr B’s application to extend his vehicle licence. When Mr B submitted the request it was not complete. His submission was close to the date it expired but it was only three weeks after the submission that the Council asked for further information from him. Over the next three months the Council asked for further clarification from Mr B and requested further information. I can see nothing to show the Council told Mr B of the outcome of the application until Mr D complained.
10. However, I cannot say the decision was itself flawed. The Council’s position was that once the application had lapsed then it could not be renewed. There could be a few days grace allowed but by the time all the necessary information was received it was well outside that. It was close to the date of expiry when Mr B submitted the extension request leaving little time to ensure it was complete. Mr D told me that shortly after the Council requested additional information Mr B supplied it. But I have not seen evidence of that. And the emails I have seen from Mr B to the Council about this do not support that he had sent in that information. So, although there was delay by the Council that was not the reason why the licence was not extended.
11. There was fault in the way the Council responded to the complaint. There was delay and different points were raised and not clearly explained.
12. Although I cannot say the outcome on the two key points about the applications would have been different, Mr B suffered injustice as a result of the faults by the Council. He was put to time and trouble in providing information for the driver licence application which, by that time, could not succeed. And the failure to tell him of the outcome will have left him uncertain as to his position.

Back to top

Agreed action

13. The Council will apologise to Mr B and pay him £100 in recognition of the faults and injustice I refer to above. It will do so within a month of the final decision.
14. The Council will consider whether there are lessons to be learnt from the issues that arose in this complaint. It should tell us of the outcome of its consideration within two months of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

15. There was fault which caused injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman