|
For those who are wondering about the procedure and powers of the local Government Ombudsman? Here is a case in point.
Beverley House 17 Shipton Road York YO30 5FZ
Report on an investigation into complaint no 01/C/09013 against Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council 23 October 2002
Table of Contents Page
Report Summary
Introduction
Legal and Administrative Background
The Law
The Council’s policy regarding taxi licensing
Investigation
Background
Conclusion
Remedy
Key to names used
Mr Hill - Complainant
Officer A - A Licensing Officer
Officer B - A Solicitor
Councillor C - Member of Policy (Taxis) Sub-Committee
Councillor D - Member of Policy (Taxis) Sub-Committee
Councillor E - Member of Policy (Taxis) Sub-Committee
Report Summary
Taxi Licensing
Mr Hill (not his real name for legal reasons) complained that the Council had taken too long to decide whether he was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi. The Council took six months to determine Mr Hill’s application for a taxi licence. The Ombudsman concluded that six months was an unreasonable length of time and that the decision should have been made in three months at most. She found that Mr Hill had sustained injustice through the loss of the chance that his licence could have been granted earlier.
Finding
Maladministration causing injustice
Recommended remedy
The Council should pay Mr Hill £500 compensation.
Introduction
1. Mr Hill complains that the Council took too long to decide whether he was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi. He also complains that the Council did not warn him that his case would have to be heard by the Policy (Taxis) Sub-Committee until after he had paid for and passed the taxi drivers’ knowledge test.
2. An officer of the Commission has examined the files of the Council and has interviewed officers and Members of the Council.
3. I am required to investigate complaints without revealing the identities of the people involved. For legal reasons, therefore, the names used in this report are not the real names of the people and places involved.
4. An opportunity has been given to the complainant and the Council to comment on a draft of this report prior to my finalising the conclusion.
Legal and Administrative Background
The Law
5. The Council has the power to license drivers of Hackney Carriages and private hire vehicles
The Council can discharge its licensing duty by appointing a committee
or sub committee to carry out this function or it can delegate its power to officers
6. Before a Council issues a driving licence it must satisfy itself that the applicant is a fit and proper person.
The Council’s policy regarding taxi licensing
7. The Council has established a sub-committee, the Policy (Taxis) Sub-Committee (the Committee), to deal with taxi licences. The Committee has six members in addition to a Chairman who holds a casting vote.
1 Local Government Act 1974, section 30(3)
2 Town Police Causes Act 1847 Section 47 and Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 Section 53.
3 Local Government Act 1972 Section 101.
4 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 Section 59(1)(a).
8. The Council has delegated power to officers to decide applications where there are no more than six points endorsed on the applicant’s driving licence.
Investigation Background
9. In December 1998 Mr Hill was convicted for speeding. For this he received a fixed penalty fine and three points were endorsed on his licence.
10. In May 1999 Mr Hill was again convicted for speeding. This time he was fined £250, a further three points were put on his licence and he was disqualified from driving for 28 days.
11. On 12 March 2001 Mr Hill applied for a licence to drive a taxi.
12. In April he took and failed the Council’s local knowledge test but when he took the test again on 10 May he passed it.
13. Because he had been banned from driving for 28 days following his last offence, Mr Hill could not be granted a licence by officers using their delegated powers. Instead his case had to go before the Committee.
14. On 11 June Mr Hill’s solicitors complained to the Council that it was ridiculous that Mr Hill should be asked to do this after he had taken his taxi driving and loca knowledge tests. The letter went on to say that Mr Hill had not been told when his case was likely to be heard and asked for an early date.
15. The Council replied on 15 June, saying that it did not consider the situation as ridiculous, as Mr Hill would need to take his tests prior to gaining a licence in any event and that the committee would need to consider his application in light of his disqualification.
16. The Council says that applicants are required to take their test first, so that when drivers appear before the committee “elected Members are able to deal with a case to conclusion rather than having to refer an applicant back to the Licensing Section to undertake various tests”.
17. Mr Hill’s solicitors responded in a letter to the Council on 27 June. The letter said that they would have expected their client would not have had to take any tests until he knew whether the Committee would decide that he was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. They also complained that their client had still not received a date for the Committee hearing and asked for a list of all those who were due to appear before the Committee and an indication of where Mr Hill was on that list.
18. Officer A, a Licensing Officer, responded to this letter on 4 July. She said that due to Data Protection legislation the Council was not able to supply a list of names but that at that point it had 72 applications outstanding.
19. This letter appears not to have been received by Mr Hill’s solicitors who wroteagain on 27 July. They said that their main concern was the delay in processing the application.
20. Officer A replied on 30 July, attaching her letter of 4 July and saying that she would contact them again when a date had been set for the hearing. Again, this letter does not appear to have reached its destination, so Officer A telephoned the solicitors and faxed them copies of the missing correspondence.
21. On 2 August 2001 Mr Hill’s solicitors wrote to the Council again to say they were disappointed with the lack of progress and that the delay was significant as their client was being denied the opportunity to earn a living. The solicitor asked where Mr Hill was on the list of outstanding cases to be heard by the Committee.
22. Officer A responded on the same day. She pointed out that she was still not in a position to give a date for a hearing but said that the Council was arranging extra Committee meetings in an effort to reduce waiting time on the list. Officer A explained that all applications were dealt with on a first-come first-served basis but that the Council gave priority to complaints against drivers and prosecutions.
23. In response to the point Mr Hill’s solicitor had made about him not earning a living because of the delay, Officer A said: “I do not accept that your client is being denied earning a living as a result of the Council’s failings. The position he finds himself in is a result of his previous poor driving record which goes directly to the issue as to whether he is a fit and proper person to hold a private hire drivers licence”.
24. Officer B (a solicitor), Councillor C and Councillor E (both Members of the Committee) confirm that it is important to remember that Mr Hill was not coming into the process with ‘clean hands’.
25. On 6 September Mr Hill’s solicitors wrote again and complained that they still did not have a date for a hearing. They reminded the Council that Mr Hill was unemployed and asked where Mr Hill was in the queue for a hearing.
26. On 6 September Mr Hill’s solicitors complained to me.
27. On 7 September Officer A responded to the letter from Mr Hill’s solicitors. She said that she could not confirm when a date would be set but that the Council was arranging extra meetings to reduce the waiting time for applicants. She informed the solicitors that she could not say where Mr Hill was on the list, as it changed every day and some complaints had to be given priority (see paragraph 22 above). However, Officer A did confirm that since her letter of 2 August the Committee had met three times and had dealt with 32 applications. She also confirmed that there would be two further hearings in September.
28. The Council says that problems with delays began around the early part of winter 2000. Efforts were made to deal with the backlog of applicants to be heard by the Committee by increasing delegated power to officers so that they could decide cases where there were up to six points endorsed on a driving licence. Extra meetings of the Committee were held to consider those applications which only Members could decide.
29. Officer A says that the main problem in 2001 was caused by some applicants whose cases were to be heard by the committee not turning up or exercising a right to defer their case to a later date. She produced figures to show that the number of deferred cases had gone up from 10% of the total in 2000 to 21% in 2001.
30. The Council says it has recently changed its policy so that only one deferment would be allowed and if drivers do not turn up to hearings cases are decided in their absence.
31. Officers A and B stress that it is very difficult to plan the work of the Committee, as the Council has no control over the intake of work coming in to the department. Large numbers of applicants sometimes come through from the magistrates court and join the list for consideration by the Committee. Officer A says it is very difficult to arrange extra meetings as Members have other responsibilities and very congested diaries.
32. Councillor C says the Committee has experienced a massive increase in workload in the past few years. He believes that the Committee has doubled the number of meetings it holds since 1997. He says meetings last all day or well into the evening and that he personally had taken annual leave from his full time job to get through the backlog.
33. Officer A says that in 2000 there were 13 meetings dealing with 134 cases and in 2001 14 meetings dealing with 163 cases.
34. The Council stresses the importance it places upon taxi licensing as it concerns fundamental issues of public safety.
35. Officer B says the condition of the waiting list is reviewed before every meeting. If the officers feel that the list is getting too long, then this is drawn to the attention of the members of the Committee next time the Committee sits. The Committee will then arrange extra (and longer) meetings to address the backlog.
36. Officer D says this happened twice in 2001 and four extra meetings were arranged.
37. Officer A says that in May 2001 at the start of the Committee’s year the delay was approximately three-four months and that by September it had risen to six months. Councillor C says delays of this length are not unusual.
38. Mr Hill’s application for a taxi licence was heard by the Committee on 20 November 2001. Officer B says he advised the Committee that the time gap since Mr Hill’s last offence (by now 22 years) was one that they could take into account and that the question to be considered was whether Mr Hill was a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence.
39. The committee decided to grant Mr Hill a temporary licence for six months and he was warned of the seriousness of speeding offences.
40. The Council says that the fact that the hearing was delayed assisted Mr Hill’s application, as the gap between the time of the offences and the date of the hearing was a fundamental consideration.
41. Councillor C says that generally he “liked to see a bit of daylight” between a conviction and the grant of a licence. He says it is not unusual to grant a six month licence. He also says that if the Committee had heard Mr Hill’s application earlier it could have refused a licence or granted a three month licence if it felt the issue was really serious. If the Committee had considered the matter to be less of a concern it could have granted a full 12 month licence.
42. Councillor D (another member of the Committee) says it is not easy to say what she would have thought had Mr Hill come to the Committee earlier but that they may have granted him only a three month licence.
43. Councillor E says she had been thinking of recommending a three month licence as she had never before come across a case where a driver had been disqualified for speeding. However, after hearing the Committee’s discussion on the case she agreed with the general consensus to grant a six month licence.
44. All members of the Committee agreed that each case had to be considered on its facts but Councillor E added that her main consideration was whether an applicant was likely to re-offend.
45. Officer B says that he does not think that the Council could have done anything else to avoid the delay in hearing applications for taxi licences. Although he accepted that a six month delay was not ideal, he felt that the Council had made every effort to be flexible and he points out that the work involved in preparing for the hearings is considerable.
46. Councillor C says it would be unfair to put any more responsibility onto the officers through increased delegation as the Committee dealt with matters of public safety. He says that the Council has taken delegation as far as it can and that the only way forward would be to arrange even more meetings to deal with high demand. He says that from May 2002 the Committee will meet more in the summer and that this may stop the waiting list building up.
47. The Council has since adopted indicators and targets to measure its performance. In relation to taxi licensing the Council has a target that 100% of referrals to the Committee should be heard within eight weeks.
Conclusion
48. I do not accept his solicitors’ argument that it is ridiculous that Mr Hill could not apply for a licence before he had passed his knowledge test. The Council’s policy of only referring applicants who have passed their knowledge tests to the Committee (so that it can deal with cases through to conclusion) does not seem unreasonable to me.
49. The Committee is dealing with people’s livelihoods and the Council has a responsibility to deal with cases within a reasonable time. Mr Hill’s solicitor told the Council of his client’s employment status and so it was aware that while he was waiting he would be living on a very low income.
50. I accept that the Council has had to deal with an increasing number of cases being referred to the Committee in recent years and has had problems in coping. I am pleased to see that the Council has now adopted a target time of eight weeks to hear cases referred to the Committee. However, the Committee took six months to consider Mr Hill’s application.
51. I do not accept the view of some Members and officers that all this delay was the fault of the applicant because he was ultimately to blame for the endorsements on his driving licence. I accept that some delay would have been the result of his endorsements in that his case would always have been referred to the Committee, but I consider his case should have been heard within three months. The failure to consider his case within a reasonable time constitutes maladministration.
52. The Council argues that, had his case been considered earlier, he might not have been granted a licence. On the other hand, he might have been granted one for three or six months. We cannot now know what the outcome would have been but clearly there was a chance that a licence would have been granted earlier.
Remedy
53. I consider that Mr Hill has suffered some injustice as a result of maladministration by the Council for which the Council should pay him £500.
Mrs P A Thomas 23 October 2002
Local Government Ombudsman
Beverley House
17 Shipton Road
York
YO30 5FZ
|
Login
Register
FAQ
