Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about private hire license renewal because the court is better placed to consider the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Authority (TfL) mishandled his Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) license renewal by wrongly recording that he has surrendered his license, failed to issue his renewal pack to him and failed to respond to his complaint.
2. Mr Y says this caused him inconvenience and a loss of earnings as he was unable to work for several weeks.

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. 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)
5. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr Y complained TfL wrongly recorded that he was surrendering his PHV license, rather than changing his address on it. He says TfL also failed to issue him a renewal pack. He has now been able to renew his PHV license for three years but says he was unable to work for several weeks while the issue was corrected, leading to a loss of income. Mr Y is now seeking the recovery of the loss of income he says he experienced as the substantive remedy in this case.
9. 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 Authority would be liable for this. These are legal claims which may only be determined by insurers or the courts.
10. 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 Authority to be responsible for, are matters more appropriately dealt with by the courts. Therefore, we will not investigate.
11. There might be some cost to court action. However, that does not mean it is unreasonable to take court action. There is often financial assistance to those of a low income from HM Courts and Tribunal Service and Mr Y may be able to claim back any costs as part of the claim he makes to the court if he is successful in the substantive matter. Also, reasonable adjustments can be made for access to the service, if necessary, by the courts. It is therefore reasonable for Mr Y to be expected to use his right to go to court about this matter. Consequently, we will not investigate.
12. Mr Y has also complained about the lack of response he received to his complaint by the Authority. As we are not investigating the substantive matter in this complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Authority dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the court is better placed to consider the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman