The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s handling of his private hire vehicle driver’s licence application. This is because we could not say any delay by the authority caused the injustice Mr X claims.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains Transport for London (TfL) delayed in dealing with his private hire vehicle (PHV) driver’s licence application. He says that as a result he lost one week’s pay.
Mr X also complains TfL has not taken appropriate action to regulate companies it has issued an operator’s licence but which Mr X believes are not fit and proper to hold a licence.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
TfL sent Mr X a licence renewal pack in June 2021 and although Mr X started his renewal application online at the time he did not submit his application until two months later. Mr X has provided evidence of his payment to TfL in July 2021 but this does not show he submitted his completed application before the date given by TfL.
In its response to Mr X’s complaint TfL has set out several errors in the supporting information he provided with his application, mostly relating to medical forms completed by his GP. TfL required further information from Mr X and corrections by his GP before it could approve his application and grant a licence, and once Mr X has provided this it issued his licence the same day.
Mr X is not happy with TfL’s new process for dealing with licence applications and says its delay caused him to lose one week’s pay but we could not say it is responsible for his loss. This is because there were significant delays in the submission of Mr X’s application and in the completion of forms by his GP. Had Mr X submitted his application when he first started the process, or if Mr X’s GP had correctly completed the forms at the outset, Mr X would likely have received his new licence sooner. He may then have avoided the losses he now claims, which are too speculative for us to provide a remedy for. If Mr X considers TfL is responsible for his loss of income it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.
While Mr X is unhappy with TfL’s handling of concerns about PHV operators the concerns he raises primarily concern private issues between the operators and those working for them. TfL has a duty to consider the fitness of such operators to hold a licence and evidence shows it has acted on this point in the past.
The impact of this issue on Mr X concerns his personal relationship with the operator and it is not for TfL to intervene in such matters. TfL has the option to suspend or revoke the operator’s licence but this would be of no benefit to Mr X. Any injustice Mr X may claim from this issue concerns the terms of his contract with the operator and it is for Mr X to negotiate these points with them directly, or to seek employment with another operator.
Mr X is also unhappy with the way TfL dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at TfL’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not hold TfL responsible for the losses Mr X claims.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman