Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about private hire vehicle licensing because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council had failed to issue a renewed private hire vehicle license before his previous license expired. Mr Y also complained about the poor communication he experienced during his complaint.
2. Mr Y says that he was unable to work legally between February 2025, when his license expired and May 2025 when his license was renewed, causing him financial difficulties and inconvenience at needing to chase the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. When Mr Y approached us, he told us that he was seeking the immediate renewal of his private hire vehicle license as he was unable to work legally without this. Shortly after Mr Y approached us, the Council did this and in May 2025, Mr Y has confirmed his license was renewed.
8. When considering remedies to complaints, we seek to put Mr Y back into the position he would have been in, had the problem have not occurred. As the substantive remedy, with the license having been renewed, has now been completed, we must consider whether further investigation would now lead to a different outcome, which would be worthwhile in achieving as a result of our investigation.
9. We must use public funds carefully. Mr Y’s license has now been renewed, and the remaining injustice relates to the handling of his complaint and the impact on his income.
10. The legislation from which the Ombudsman takes their power also places some restrictions on what we may investigate. This includes claims for damages, in this case for loss of earnings, and whether the Council would be liable for this. These are legal claims which may only be determined by insurers or the courts.
11. We are not able to decide liability or award damages. Consequently, any claim for damages, such as a loss of earnings, which Mr Y considers the Council to be responsible for, are matters more appropriately dealt with by the courts. As we cannot award damages in this way, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable through our investigation. Therefore, we will not investigate.
12. Mr y has also complained about how this complaint was dealt with, particularly the poor standard of communication he received and delays. However, as we are not investigating the substantive complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate this.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman