Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council revoked Mr X’s taxi licence. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mr X to use his legal right to appeal to the magistrates’ court against the revocation of the licence.

The complaint

1. In summary, Mr X complains the Council’s decision to revoke his taxi licence was unfair as he was on remand in prison and lost his opportunity to appeal.
2. Mr X also says the Council’s decision is unwarranted as he has not been convicted of any offence and faces losing his livelihood.
3. Mr X would like his licence reinstated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to have gone to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant, the Council’s response to my query and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council says it wrote to both Mr X’s home and also his HMP address. It said he was advised of his right to appeal to the Magistrates Court in 21 days.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. Where the Council revokes a licence it should advise the licence holder of their legal appeal rights to the magistrates court within 21 days. The Council says it wrote to the addresses it had on file so I consider it was reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal. The Ombudsman is unable to legally determine if Mr X is a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold a licence.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to appeal to the Magistrates courts within 21 days if he was unhappy with any aspect of the Council’s decision to revoke the licence.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman