Summary: Mr X complained the Council treated his application to renew his taxi licence as a new application. He also said the Council delayed issuing his new licence and responding to his complaint. The Council are not at fault for treating Mr X’s renewal application as a new application. We did find the Council at fault for delays and poor communication.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council treated his application to renew his taxi licence as a new application. He said the Council delayed in processing his application, granting his licence and dealing with his complaint. Mr X said this caused frustration and expense. Mr X would like the Council to pay him the money he has lost and ensure the new system works.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

4. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

6. The power to grant Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) licences is contained within section 48 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The local authority shall grant a licence if satisfied the vehicle is:
• suitable in type, size and design for use as PHV;
• not of such design and appearance as to lead any person to believe that the vehicle is a hackney carriage;
• in a suitable mechanical condition;
• safe and comfortable; and
• meets any additional requirements prescribed by the Council; and
7. There is no statutory time frame for processing applications.

The Council’s policies and procedures

Application for a new or renewed Private Hire Vehicle Licence

8. The Council’s website explains how an individual can apply for a new PHV licence or renew an existing one.
9. The Council can only legally issue a licence for a PHV if it is satisfied the vehicle is comfortable, safe and insured.
10. A vehicle must pass a compliance test before it is licensed or re-licensed. Applicants book the test through the Council at its appointed garage.
11. The applicant sends documents to the Council for officers to check.
12. The applicant is invited to pay the licence fee once the documents have been checked and approved.
13. Once the Council receives the licence fee, it issues the licence.
14. The website says if the Council has not contacted an applicant for a renewal PHV within 48 hours of their licence expiring, they may telephone the Licensing Service.
15. On the front page of the Council’s information about licensing, there is an alert which says the Licensing Service are prioritising all renewal applications in date of expiry. Licences will be renewed on time but will not be renewed until a few days before expiry. It asks applicants to ‘refrain from calling or emailing the council requesting an update on your licence renewal unless your licence is due to expire within the next 48 hours’.
16. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it does not send reminders to drivers to renew their PHV licence. The responsibility is on the driver to ensure their vehicle is compliant and has a licence. Neither does the Council contact drivers of expired PHV licences.
17. The Council keeps a monthly ‘renewal due’ list. This shows licences which are ‘pending’ and due to expire each month. A month after the renewal date, the Council removes names from the list. If the Council receives an application to renew more than a month after the expiry date and it has removed the name from the list, the Council treats it as a new application.
18. The Council considers each case on its own merits and does not have a list of special circumstances when it will accept a late application for a PHV licence.

The Council’s complaints procedure

19. The Council has a two-stage internal procedure. A Manager will investigate the complaint and provide a stage one response within ten working days of receipt.
20. If a customer is not satisfied with the response, they may ask for a stage two investigation. A Head of Service will review and respond to the complaint within 10 working days of receipt.
21. If the Council cannot provide a response within 10 working days, the Council will tell the complainant, give reasons for the delay and give an expected response time.
22. If the complainant is not happy with the Council’s stage two response, they may complain to the Ombudsman.

What happened

23. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
24. Mr X is a taxi driver in the Council’s area and has been for many years. He has completed several applications and said he is ‘…very well aware of the timeline involved…’ for renewing his licences.
25. Mr X’s PHV licence expired on 14 March 2022. Mr X did not drive his PHV once the licence expired. Mr X hired a settle car (a PHV with a licence attached) costing £180 per week so he could continue to work.
26. Mr X booked the compliance test for his PHV on 20 April 2022, it passed on 22 April 2022.
27. Mr X applied to renew his PHV licence on 25 April 2022. He sent relevant documents.
28. The Council’s records show Mr X telephoned the Council on 6 July 2022 and several other days in July 2022. Mr X waited on hold each time he called. On two occasions, the contact centre asked the licensing service to contact Mr X and it failed to do so.
29. Two Councillors emailed the licensing service about Mr X’s application on 21 July 2022.
30. The Council contacted Mr X on 25 July 2022 and took payment for the licence. The same day, the Council granted a PHV licence to Mr X.
31. Mr X said there were two reasons he submitted his application late. He was undergoing treatment for a medical condition and his PHV was having a new engine fitted.
32. Mr X wrote to the Chief Executive of the Council in late August 2022. He did not receive a response so wrote again in late September 2022 and sent a copy to the Leader of the Council.
33. The Chief Executive responded to Mr X’s complaint in October 2022. The letter explains as Mr X did not submit his application to renew his PHV licence within a month of it expiring, the Council treated it as a new application. He apologised for the Council’s lack of response to Mr X’s telephone calls and said it was not up to standard.
34. Mr X requested a stage two review of his complaint which the Council sent in early December 2022. The letter reiterated the content of the Chief Executive’s letter and refused Mr X’s claim for compensation. The letter said the Council granted Mr X’s licence on 25 July 2022 and said, ‘Although this delay was regrettable, your application was processed within 14 working days of you contacting the Council on 6 July 2022.’
35. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in November 2022.

Analysis

The Council treating Mr X’s application to renew as a new application

36. Mr X applied to renew his PHV licence six weeks after it expired. The Council’s policy is to treat renewal applications received a month after the expiry date as new applications. Mr X falls outside this timeframe. The Council acted within its policy when it treated his application to renew as a new application. The Council is not required to consider Mr X’s late application as a renewal, it is not at fault.
37. The Council do not offer a reminder service to applicants and expect proprietors to take responsibility for ensuring their vehicles are correctly licensed. Mr X is a knowledgeable taxi driver and has been driving for several years, he knows the timeframe for submitting applications. It was Mr X’s responsibility to ensure he sent his application in time, he failed to do so. I do not find the Council at fault.
38. I understand Mr X was going through a difficult time with his health when his licence expired. He did not inform the Council of this when he submitted his application for renewal, it was not aware of any special circumstances. The Council therefore did not take this into account. Even if Mr X had told the Council, there would be no obligation on the Council to consider this.
39. For the above reasons, I do not find the Council at fault for treating Mr X’s application to renew his PHV licence as a new application.

Delay in issuing a new licence to Mr X

40. Mr X’s vehicle passed its compliance test on 22 April 2022. Mr X sent his application and relevant documents on 25 April 2022. The next stage was for the Council to check the documents and contact Mr X to take payment. It would then issue the licence providing everything was in order. The power was in the Council’s hands to progress the application, Mr X had done everything the Council asked.
41. The Council do not advertise processing times on its website. In response to my enquires it said new licences are processed the same day providing the vehicle passed the test and the documentation is in order. The Council granted Mr X’s licence on 25 July 2022, 13 weeks after he submitted his application and documents and his vehicle passed its test. This is significantly longer than one day. This is delay, this is fault.
42. While there is no statutory time frame for processing applications, the Ombudsman expects authorities to do so within a reasonable timeframe, six weeks would be appropriate for standard cases. I consider 13 weeks a long time to process a standard licence application, this is seven weeks longer than the Ombudsman considers reasonable. This is fault.

Mr X’s correspondence with the Council

43. In response to my enquiries, the Council stated Mr X failed to mitigate his losses as he did not contact the Council to ask about the progress of his application. Mr X waited ten weeks before contacting the Council. While I understand the point the Council makes; it is a professional organisation and applicants would not expect to have to chase for an outcome.
44. While Mr X could have contacted the Council earlier to ask about his application, I do not consider his failure to do so detracts from the Council’s fault in delay, especially considering the advice on its website.
45. However, considering Mr X was paying money weekly for a settle car while the Council processed his application, I would expect him to ask for an update much earlier and tell the Council about his situation. The Council where not aware he hired a settle car until ten weeks after his licence expired. Once Mr X told the Council it issued the licence within three weeks. I consider the Council is likely to have prioritised Mr X’s application and processed it much quicker had it been aware of his situation.
46. Mr X made several attempts to contact staff to enquire about his application in July. Mr X abandoned several calls due to long waiting times. On two occasions, after a long wait (24 minutes and 47 minutes) Mr X spoke to contact centre staff. The staff asked licensing officers to contact Mr X. On both occasions, licensing staff failed to do so.
47. In its stage two complaint response, the Council accepted there were several times its Licensing Service missed opportunities to prioritise Mr X’s application and apologised for the delay.
48. The Council failed to respond to Mr X’s correspondence within a reasonable time which caused further delay. This is fault.

Handling of Mr X’s complaint

49. Mr X complained to the Chief Executive of the Council in late August 2022. He did not receive a response so wrote again at the end of September 2022. He received a response from the Chief Executive at the beginning of October 2022 which acted as a stage one response. Mr X sought a stage two investigation in the middle of November 2022 and received a response mid-December 2022. According to the Council’s complaints procedure, it should issue responses within 15 working days. The Council failed to respond to Mr X’s first complaint letter and were over the 15 working days timeframe to respond to his stage one and stage two complaints. This is delay, this is fault.

Injustice

50. I have considered the impact the Council’s faults had on Mr X.
51. The Council’s delay in issuing a new licence to Mr X and its failure to respond to Mr X’s telephone calls meant he could not drive his PHV and had to hire a settle car. This caused Mr X expense and frustration, exacerbated by the Council’s delay dealing with his complaint. That is his injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

52. The Council shall:
• Pay Mr X £500 for the distress and frustration its delay in processing his application and responding to his complaint caused.
• Apologise to Mr X for the distress and frustration its delay in processing his application and responding to his complaint caused.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

54. The Council are not at fault for treating Mr X’s application to renew as a new licence as he applied late. The Council are at fault for delay in dealing with Mr X’s application, failing to respond to telephone calls and delay in responding to his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman