Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to investigate his concerns about the actions of a private hire operator and treated him differently and unreasonably by investigating a complaint from the private hire operator about him. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained the Council:
• failed to investigate his concerns about the actions of a private hire operator (the operator);
• treated him differently and unreasonably by investigating a complaint from the operator about him;
• acted in a biased manner because the manager of the operator used to work for the Council; and
• wrongly interviewed him under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) which meant he had to pay for legal representation.
2. Mr B says the Council’s actions caused him distress and led to him incurring legal costs.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
6. Mr B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. Councils must consider The Regulators' Code 2014 (the code) when forming policy on how to administer hackney carriage (HC) or Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) licensing.
8. The Council’s policy on deciding the suitability of applicants and licensees as drivers in taxi and private hire licencing says:
• the Council must ensure applicant/licence holders are and remain fit and proper persons to hold a licence. As part of its assessment the Council is concerned to ensure that:
1. an individual does not pose a threat to the public;
2. the Council's obligations to safeguard children and vulnerable adults are met;
3. the public are protected from dishonest persons.
• the Council is entitled and bound to treat the safety of the public as the paramount consideration.
• In all cases the Council will consider a conviction or relevant behaviour and what weight should be attached to it and each case will be decided on its own merits and in line with the policy.
• The Council, at its absolute discretion, may determine to meet with the applicant or existing licence holder for the purpose of clarifying information provided or received. The applicant can be accompanied by one individual at the meeting who is not permitted to make comment or enter into any part of the discussion.
9. The Council’s standard conditions attached to a private hire operator's licence says:
• public safety is paramount.
• any person wishing to acquire a licence to operate a private hire vehicle shall be a fit and proper person and produce such information as reasonably required by the authority or undertake such appropriate training and testing as required to assist in establishing that assessment.

What happened

10. Mr B is a taxi driver and at the time complained of was working for the operator.
11. In 2022 Mr B raised some concerns about the actions of the operator. Mr B’s concerns related to how the operator was paying its drivers. The Council told Mr B it could not intervene in internal management or working practice issues between the operator and its drivers but said it would pass his concerns onto the operator to deal with.
12. Later in 2022 the operator told the Council it had ended Mr B’s engagement and copied the Council in on an email to Mr B. That email set out some concerns about Mr B’s behaviour. The Council referred that to an enforcement officer to consider whether Mr B’s conduct had fallen below the required standard.
13. The Council interviewed Mr B under PACE in May 2023. The Council then wrote Mr B in October 2023 with formal words of advice. In that letter the Council explained it considered Mr B’s actions had fallen below the standards expected of licensees for acting in a civil and orderly manner. The Council explained if there were further complaints of a similar nature or any other complaints that raised concerns it would consider the matter again to form a whole picture of whether Mr B was a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Analysis

14. Mr B says the Council failed to investigate his concerns about the actions of the operator. Mr B says as a private hire driver he and the operator are covered by the same fit and proper person test. Mr B says because the Council investigated a complaint the operator made about him as a driver it had a similar responsibility to investigate the complaint he raised about the operator. Mr B says because the Council failed to do that it treated him differently and discriminated against him. Mr B also raises concerns because a former Council employee now works for the operator which he believes suggests bias.
15. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the concerns Mr B raised about the operator related to the relationship between it and Mr B as one of its drivers. Mr B had raised concerns about whether the operator was acting reasonably and honestly in how it dealt with charges due to Mr B as a driver. I am satisfied the reason the Council did not investigate those concerns is because it was satisfied those issues related to the operator’s business practices and the Council can only act when the issues raised a potential breach of the operator’s licence conditions.
16. Having considered the concerns Mr B raised and the conditions the Council imposes on operator’s licenses I am satisfied the decision the Council reached here is merits. As the Council has told Mr B, the operator’s licence conditions do not extend to its relationship with its drivers, how it treats its drivers or the business practices it employs. The fit and proper person test also concerns protection of the public, rather than those that work for the operator. Given the concerns Mr B raised related to business working practices and fairness for the drivers I cannot criticise the Council for deciding it should not investigate Mr B’s concerns about the operator.
17. For the concerns the Council investigated about Mr B, I have seen no evidence to suggest the operator raised a formal complaint with the Council. Instead, the evidence I have seen satisfies me when telling the Council about its decision to end Mr B’s services as a driver the operator set out its reasons. Those related to some issues with Mr B’s behaviour. It was the Council, rather than the operator, that identified those as issues which might affect whether Mr B was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. That is because the Council had concerns his behaviour brought into question whether he had behaved in a civil and orderly manner, as covered by one of the conditions attached to his licence.
18. I appreciate Mr B feels the Council treated him differently. It is not my role though to comment on the merits of the Council’s decision unless there is evidence of fault in how that decision was reached. As I have made clear, the fit and proper person test concerns the safety of the public. Mr B’s licence conditions also cover behaving in a civil and orderly manner. The issues the operator told the Council of were, in the Council’s view, matters which could affect whether Mr B was a fit and proper person to hold a licence and could have been a breach of his licence conditions. I cannot criticise the Council for taking that view, no matter how much Mr B disagrees with it. I do not consider that is evidence of different treatment given the concerns Mr B raised about the operator did not concern the conditions on the operator’s license or raise safety issues for the public, in the Council’s view.
19. I appreciate Mr B believes the Council was influenced by the fact one of its former employees now works for the operator. I have found no evidence to suggest that is the case. As I said, the evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council considered the circumstances in each case and reached a decision it was entitled to reach, although I recognise it is a decision Mr B strongly disagrees with. As there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the two cases I have no grounds to criticise it.
20. Mr B is also concerned the Council interviewed him under PACE which meant he had to pay for legal representation. While I understand Mr B’s concern, the evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council carried out the interview under PACE as that is considered best practice. I cannot criticise the Council for doing that. While it was open to Mr B to decide he needed legal representation I do not consider that was due to any fault by the Council. So, I have no grounds to criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman