Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed processing his application to renew his private hire taxi vehicle licence causing him to miss out potential earnings. The Council was at fault for a minor delay in approving Mr X’s application. The Council agreed apologise to Mr X to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council managed the renewal of his private hire taxi driver’s licence. He stated the Council delayed processing his application and was slow to respond to his complaint about the matter.
2. As a result, his licence expired, which left him unable to work and earn an income for 18 days.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Application for a new or renewed Private Hire Vehicle Licence

7. The Council’s website explains how an individual can apply for a new PHV licence or renew an existing one.
8. There is no statutory time frame for processing applications.
9. The Council can only legally issue a PHV licence if it is satisfied that the vehicle is comfortable, safe, roadworthy, and appropriately insured.
10. A vehicle must pass a compliance (MOT) test before it can be licensed or re-licensed. Applicants must book this test through the Council's online portal, selecting from one of the Council's appointed approved garages.
11. The applicant sends documents to the Council for officers to check.
12. Applications must be submitted online with required documents
13. Required documents are:
• Proof of ownership or lease (e.g. V5C, bill of sale, or lease agreement).
• Valid insurance for private hire and reward use.
• MOT certificate (issued within 10 days of application).
• Licence fee (amount depends on vehicle age).
• A Basic DBS certificate (dated within the last 12 months) is needed. All directors/partners must submit one if it’s a company.
14. In the Council’s complaint response (Part 1) dated January, reference was made to a ten-day Service Level Agreement (SLA), indicating a commitment to respond to or process an application or document submission within that timeframe. However, this reference was omitted from the subsequent complaint response (Part 2) issued in March.
15. According to the Council’s website, submitted applications are placed in a queue and processed once they reach the front. If an application is incomplete or contains errors, processing may take longer. The Council does not guarantee specific processing times; any timescales provided are indicative only.

The Council’s formal complaints process

16. There are two stages to the Council’s complaints process – Stage 1 and Stage 2.
17. In some cases, the Council may not be able to accept a complaint; this may be because there is a valid reason not to accept a complaint, for example anonymous complaint or the complaint may be covered by different procedures. If the Council decides not to accept a complaint at any stages of the complaints procedure, an explanation will be provided to the customer setting out the reasons why the complaint cannot be accepted or escalated; the customer will have the right to take the Council’s decision to the LGSCO.

What happened

18. Mr X, a private hire vehicle (PHV) licence holder, was informed by the Council in late September 2024 he needed to renew his licence, which was due to expire at the end of December. The Council’s email included instructions and a list of required documents he needed to submit with his application.
19. Mr X submitted his renewal application on 1 November 2024, stating he had used the time prior to gather necessary documents, including a DVLA share code and tax check. On 8 November, the Council requested additional information, including a right to work share code. Mr X said he provided this the following day.
20. At the end of November, the Council informed Mr X his proof of right to work was still outstanding and requested a copy of his passport, which he subsequently provided. In early December, Mr X contacted the Council multiple times to request updates on the status of his application.
21. On 20 December—one day before his licence expired—the Council approved his application and asked him to attend the licensing office for an in-person verification, which he did the same day. However, his licence expired on 21 December, leaving him unable to work over the Christmas holiday period.
22. Mr X complained on 29 December stating the Council had delayed his application, seeking compensation for lost earnings. On 8 January 2025, the Council emailed him a copy of his electronic licence and confirmed that the physical licence badges would follow by post. It informed Mr X the electronic version was valid for immediate use.
23. Mr X told us he is a taxi driver for several operators and only one of them would allow him to work having only the electronic version of his licence and not the badges which he did not receive before the 28 January.
24. In its Stage One complaint response dated 19 January, the Council partially upheld Mr X’s complaint, acknowledging a delay in processing his application after late November once Mr X had submitted his passport copy. However, it stated Mr X had failed to provide all required documentation in a timely manner prior to this which contributed to the delay. The Council declined to offer compensation. The Council told him it processed the renewal within its ten-day SLA as it responded to Mr X within ten days once he submitted his application online when it asked Mr X for further documents. It also said it managed to send Mr X his electronic licence within the SLA time frame once all his documents were verified in person despite the office closure over Christmas.
25. In March 2025, Mr X asked for his complaint to be escalated to Stage Two. The Council refused, stating it had nothing further to add and that the outcome would not change.
26. Following this email Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and complained to us.
27. Mr X told us he found the Council’s application process confusing as he did not believe he needed to provide right to work evidence as a British citizen. He further added he was unhappy the Council did not escalate his complaint to its stage two.

My findings

Licence renewal

28. While there is no statutory timeframe for processing PHV driver’s licences, we expect licensing authorities to do so in a timely manner as a matter of good administrative practice. We consider an application should be processed within six weeks where it is fully completed and straightforward.
29. Mr X submitted his renewal application five weeks after the Council reminded him of the upcoming expiry. He believed this left enough time—over 30 working days—for the application to be processed, based on the Council's Service Level Agreement, which estimates a 10-day turnaround. This timeframe as the Council confirms on its website is indicative only and subject to an application being correct and complete when it is submitted.
30. Mr X’s application was incomplete, as it lacked proof of his right to work in the UK. This led to multiple follow-up emails from the Council to clarify requirements. Mr X believed he did not need to provide such evidence, but had he followed the link provided by the Council in early November, he would have seen that British citizens must submit a copy of their passport. He only did so at the end of November. This was the main cause of the delay in renewing his licence.
31. In its complaint response the Council acknowledged it exceeded the 10-day SLA timeframe between the submission of Mr X’s passport copy in late November and the approval of his application on 20 December. This was fault and contributed to the overall delays.
32. However, the Council completed Mr X’s application within the recommended six-week timeframe from when all the documents were in order between 27 November 2024 - when Mr X submitted his passport copy - to the 8 January 2025 when it issued the electronic licence. This is within the expected timeframe of good administrative practice and therefore I find the Council only at fault for the minor delay between 27 November and 20 December.

Handling of Mr X’s complaint

33. The Council’s formal complaint process is a two-stage process but it is at the Council's discretion not to accept or escalate complaints as long as it sets out reasons for why it decided not to do so. It provided a reason for why it would not escalate his complaint to its stage two and therefore I do not find fault in how the Council handled Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Actions

34. Within one month of the final decision, the Council agreed to apologise to Mr X for the avoidable distress the delay in processing his application between 27 November and 21 December 2024 has caused. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
35. The Council agreed to provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

36. I have found fault and made a recommendation for the Council to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman