Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed considering an application for a taxi licence. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains that the Council delayed considering his application for a taxi licence. Mr X says the Council should extend the length of his licence and refund him the fee he paid.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Taxi drivers must meet the group two DVLA medical standards. The rules say that someone who has had a diagnosis of heart failure must carry out an exercise test. If the test cannot be taken then a scan can be carried out as an alternative.
6. In December 2022, Mr X applied for the renewal of his taxi licence. In support of his application, he submitted a medical report, the Council delayed opening the report by a few weeks. When it did open the report, it found that its format did not meet the criteria laid out in the policy at the time. Mr X therefore obtained a new report from his GP.
7. The new report noted that Mr X had a history of heart failure but was unable to take the exercise test. The Council therefore informed Mr X that he would need to arrange a scan. Mr X approached his GP who was unable to refer him for a scan so he had to arrange the scan privately. Mr X provided the Council with the results of the scan and the Council issued a licence to Mr X shortly after.
8. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The original report did not meet the requirement laid out in the Council’s policy at the time. The Council could not have known that Mr X required a scan before his medical report had been provided. The Council cannot be held responsible for the GP being unable to refer Mr X for the scan, or any delays in obtaining the scan privately.
9. Whilst the Council were responsible for a delay in processing his application due to a delay in opening his original medical report, the delay was relatively short, and the Council has apologised. This is a proportionate response considering the length of the delay and I therefore do not consider there to be any outstanding injustice significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman