Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complaints application to renew their taxi licence. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about how the Council dealt with his application to renew his licence. Mr X says the Council delayed processing his DBS application and then refused to allow a grace period. Mr X says this meant his licence expired and that he had to reapply meaning he was unable to work for an extended period impacting him financially.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. Mr X’s private hire taxi licence was due to expire in August 2022. The Council wrote to Mr X and reminded him and advised that a DBS application can take 8 weeks. In June, Mr X told the Council that he had submitted an online DBS application but did not provide any documentation regarding this or the renewal application. Mr X was again reminded of the information he would need to provide.
6. Mr X contacted the Council at the end of July and provided a copy of his DBS application number. Mr X had not submitted all the required documents, so the Council sent further reminders but did not receive the requested information. Mr X’s licence expired in mid-August. Mr X provided the required information some two weeks later.
7. The Council informed Mr X he would have to start a new application which he did. He failed the knowledge test four times before passing. When the Council considered his application, it found that there were previous driving convictions and a warning from a different council that Mr X had not disclosed. He was issued a licence but was given a warning for not disclosing this information.
8. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X was reminded to renew his licence within 4 months of it expiring. The Council told Mr X on multiple occasions what information it required from him, but this was not provided until after the application expired. Whilst the Council’s policy does allow it to exercise discretion and allow an extended grace period, it did not consider this to be appropriate in Mr X’s case as the delay was not caused by delays with the DBS or the Council but rather with Mr X not providing the required information.
9. There is also no evidence of fault with the Council’s decision to issue Mr X a warning for failing to declare relevant information on his application. The decision was made in accordance with the Council’s policy, and it provided Mr X with details of the information that he did not declare.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman