Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about taxi licensing because the complaint is late without good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now and it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to have appealed to the court about the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Authority (TfL) wrongly revoked his Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) license in 2023. He also complained that TfL then applied a blanket rule not to reinstate his PHV license and failed to properly respond to his complaint in line with its policy.
2. Mr Y says he has been unable to work for two years, causing him and his family distress and hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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 provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The law says people should normally complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of an issue. Complaints brought to the Ombudsman more than 12 months after someone becomes aware of something a council has done are considered late. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons.
8. Mr Y’s was aware of his reason to complain about the Council’s actions when he was notified of his license being revoked in 2023, more than 12 months ago. Consequently, his complaint is now largely late. We have discretion to disapply the rule outlined in paragraph four where we decide there are good reasons. Mr Y has not provided any good reasons why he did not bring his complaint to us within 12 months of knowing about the matter. It is reasonable to expect him to have complained sooner. We will therefore not investigate this late complaint.
9. The remainder of the complaint, about the Council decision not to renew Mr Y’s PHV license as the original license had been revoked in 2023, occurred more recently in 2025 and therefore would not be late. However, when the Council made this decision, Mr Y had the right to appeal the decision to the Magistrates Court. The Magistrates Court can make reasonable adjustments where needed and there is financial help in some cases for those on a low income. We would therefore consider it reasonable to expect Mr Y to have used this right to appeal, or for him to now approach the court to ask to be able to appeal even if he is outside of the time frame to do so. We will therefore not investigate this complaint.
10. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how the Council dealt with or responded to Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the complaint is late without good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now and it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to have appealed to the court about the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman