Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s application to renew his taxi driver licence. This is because the main part of the complaint concerns a matter which is too late for investigation, and because further investigation will provide no worthwhile outcome to the remainder.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr J.
2. Mr J complains that, due to an error by the Council, he was unable to renew his private hire driver licence before it expired. This meant he had to apply as a new driver, which has caused a significant delay in obtaining his licence, and as a result he has been unable to work for an extended period.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr J and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr J held a private hire driver licence issued by the Council. In May 2024, he applied to renew his licence, as it was shortly due to expire.
8. The Council uses a third-party contractor to handle its taxi licensing applications. In June, after not receiving a response from the contractor, Mr J says he chased it up. The contractor responded to explain Mr J had omitted a document from his application, which meant it could not process it.
9. Before Mr J was able to rectify this, his subscription to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Update Service expired. Because of this, he says he was unable to complete the renewal of his licence before it also expired, and as a result, the Council informed he would need to apply for a new licence.
10. In August 2025 Mr J submitted a formal complaint to the Council. He said he had submitted his renewal application in time, but because of “delays beyond [his] control” he had not received a new DBS certificate until December 2024. Mr J said he had contacted the Council in August, December, and again in May 2025, to request an assessment as part of his new licence application, but it had simply told him he was on a waiting list.
11. Mr J complained the Council had not made an exception for his situation, despite having a good record, and this meant he had been unable to work for an extended period. He asked the Council to allow him to renew his licence, to prioritise doing so, and to apologise for its failure to respond to his emails.
12. The Council responded in September. It said:

• it had been the Council’s policy since 2018 to require all licensed taxi drivers to maintain a subscription to the DBS Update Service. In 2020, this requirement had become part of the Government’s statutory standards as well;
• service users receive a reminder if their subscription payment fails. In Mr J’s case, when the contractor had tried to carry out a DBS check, it found his subscription had lapsed, and for this reason his licence was suspended;
• because the Council did not receive a properly made renewal application before the expiry of Mr J’s licence, its policy required him to make a new application;
• its records showed it had acknowledged Mr J’s emails of August and December 2024 on the day of receipt. It had no record of any correspondence from Mr J in May 2025;
• it acknowledged the delay in processing his new application. The Council explained the law did not impose a fixed deadline for processing licence applications, but it was currently reviewing its process to improve efficiency;
• it could not prioritise Mr J’s application over others in the queue, but was working to reduce waiting times;
• it could not make an exception because of the extenuating circumstances Mr J had raised.

13. Mr J then referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

14. The law says a person should approach us within 12 months of becoming aware of the issue they wish to complain about. Any complaint made beyond this time is late, and we will not generally accept it for investigation.
15. In this case, Mr J says the critical issue is the alleged failure by the Council’s contractor to inform him he had missed a document from his renewal application. He says it is for this reason his licence expired before he could submit a proper application.
16. However, Mr J was aware of this in June 2024, which was more than 12 months before his complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2025. It is therefore late.
17. The law does permit us some flexibility to investigate late complaints, where we consider there is a good reason for the complainant’s delay in approaching us, but there is no evidence to support that here. I note, in particular, Mr J made regular contact with the Council throughout the relevant period, and so there is no reason to believe he could not have made a formal complaint about this sooner.
18. For this reason, I will not exercise discretion to accept this late complaint for investigation. And, as I cannot make any finding on the initial delay in the application, it follows I cannot find fault with the Council for requiring Mr J to make a new application.
19. The part of Mr J’s complaint that is in time concerns the subsequent delay in processing his new application. However, the evidence shows this was because of a backlog of applicants awaiting assessment, not because the Council has mishandled Mr J’s application in particular. I will note the Council has now confirmed Mr J completed his assessment in January 2026.
20. The Council was entitled to decide there were no exceptional circumstances in Mr J’s case, to permit him to jump the assessment queue. I accept this, unfortunately, meant he had to wait a long time for his assessment, but the same is true for any other applicant. Even if I did find fault by the Council because of the delay, it would not be equitable to recommend Mr J receive any remedy for it. We also cannot make any practical recommendations to reduce the demand on the service.
21. I note Mr J also complains the Council did not receive correspondence he sent to it in May 2025. It is not clear whether Mr J is referring to an email or a letter, but, either way, there is no practical way we could investigate why this happened.
22. Further investigation by the Ombudsman will therefore not achieve anything meaningful, and would therefore not be proportionate.

Back to top

Decision

23. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman