Taxi Driver Online

This is reported on the Herald's news site, but below is just the headline and strapline, and the text itself is from the actual ombudsman's report.

Not clear precisely what the driver's gripe was, though. Maybe he was miffed that a possible health problem that was flagged up in a medical wasn't communicated to him, which could have impacted his health, although it looks like it actually didn't.

Or maybe his subsequent suspension could have been avoided if the council had followed up on the health issue that was flagged up at the time, rather than waiting until his next renewal (he presumably had a three-year badge).

But once the driver complained about what had happened, the council obviously decided to ignore it all the best it could

In the grand scheme of things, doesn't seem much, though, but we're not told how long he was off the road for or whether that could have been avoided


Glasgow taxi driver health check failings by council

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/232 ... s-council/

A Glasgow taxi driver was on the road for years despite a health check identifying symptoms that required follow-up, an inquiry found.


Decision Report 202008542

https://www.spso.org.uk/decision-report ... -202008542

Summary

C, a taxi driver, complained about the way the council had handled their medical examination which they were required to attend to determine their fitness to DVLA Group 2 medical standards (medical standards for driver licencing refer to two groups, with Group 2 licence holders usually requiring substantially higher medical standards).

C had passed the medical examination pending the results of an Exercise Tolerance Test (ETT). However the council did not follow up on the results of this test. As such, C was unaware until their next medical some years later that their ETT had met the threshold for referral to DVLA for further consideration of their fitness to drive. C had continued to work as a taxi driver throughout this time. On recognising this oversight, C’s taxi licence was suspended to be later re-instated after an assessment undertaken by an NHS cardiologist (heart specialist) was reviewed by the council’s occupational health provider and they were considered fit to drive. In complaining to the council, C was advised the matter would be investigated internally and no further response was received, despite their requests for further updates.

We found that the council’s administration of C’s medical examination was unreasonable, noting that the ETT results had not been followed up on as they should have been, and that this oversight had not been noticed until C’s next medical examination some years later. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaint.

We found failings with the council’s complaint handling, noting they had not fulfilled their duties in keeping with the Model Complaint Handling Procedure for local authorities. Therefore, we also upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to process their taxi driver licence application reasonably and for failing to reasonably respond to their complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at http://www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The council should ensure the status of driver licences pending further medical tests are checked to ensure they remain valid.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be accurately identified and dealt with through the complaints handling procedure.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

And not really clear what this has all achieved, apart from a bad headline for the council.

I mean, the driver gets an apology (through gritted teeth, no doubt), the council's wrists are very lightly slapped, and they're told to pay attention next time

That said, no doubt very worrying and stressful for the driver, but I wonder if he'll conclude that all this has achieved much?

The SPSO is regarded as notoriously toothless anyway.

The driver was clearly miffed to be suspended, as would we all.

But other than that I struggle to see the point of the Ombudsman complaint.

The cynical part of me wonders why the driver didn't act following the first test, as he would have been given the results.

Those results would have been sent to his GP, who would/should have contacted him to discuss the way forward.

_________________
IDFIMH

Perhaps he should be chasing compensation for loss of earnings whilst suspended, I am sure the ombudsman would have awarded compensation if asked for when he complained.

Heathcote, I think the ombudsman has powers to order financial 'redress', but as regards 'compensation' they seem to regard that as more a matter for the courts. But I'd guess that unless it's something direct and quantifiable (such as a wasted fee paid to the council for a botched licence application) then they'll be reluctant to get involved.

Maybe loss of earnings is less direct, and less easy to quantify, and therefore the ombudsman decided to leave it to the driver to claim through the courts, assuming there's even a case to be made in that regard. I mean, he may have been suspended anyway first time round, so to that extent his suspension was only delayed.

Anyway, more detail about the ombudsman's powers here, if anyone is interested. There's an explanation about the compo/redress distinction on the first page:

(And I daresay the approach is different in England.)

https://www.spso.org.uk/sites/spso/file ... Policy.pdf

I read the decision as saying that the driver was in the dark about it until he reapplied for his badge and only found out then (as highlighted below). Don't know about the involvement of his GP etc, but maybe there were just communications failures all round

The way it should work when an exercise test is required is the driver books it and does all the arranging.

Once the results are known they are sent to the driver who then copies in the council.

The council shouldn’t get any info that isn’t first sent to the driver.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well it certainly reads like the driver was in the dark about it all, and the ombudsman seemed to think that the onus was on the council to organise things.

It may be relevant that in Scotland applicants for badges can't be charged for a medical, so I suspect the onus will tend to be on the councils to organise these things, and the driver just does as he's told.

It's maybe not unlike the DBS-equivalent we have up here. In Fife, at least, that thing isn't even mentioned when we apply, and it all goes on behind the scenes. Unless, of course, the process flags up an issue.

But we don't actually have to do anything, and I suspect new drivers in particular are unaware of all the vetting legwork that goes on behind the scenes before they get their badge.

So the process is more council-led, and maybe that also explains the medical thing here. And, obviously, the ombudsman gives the impression she thinks the onus is on the council to do the necessary, but unfortunately there's not much detail in the decision report

somehow nothing surprises me with Glasgow they must be the most inconsistent council in the uk

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Maybe this is further evidence that your own GP should be one undertaking any taxi/PH medicals.

At least if anything pops up they can deal with it personally rather than relying on others.

_________________
IDFIMH