Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of two tests the complainant took as part of his application to be a licensed taxi driver. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority and because the complainant could complain to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Authority’s decision that he failed two exams. Mr X feels sure he scored 100% and he thinks there has been an error by the Authority. Mr X also complains the Authority will not give him more detailed feedback.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the letters the Authority sent to Mr X. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Taxi driver licence applications

5. People must pass a topological exam as part of the application process to have a taxi driver licence. The pass mark is 60%. People can have two attempts to pass the test. If they fail twice the Authority withdraws the application. Two examiners mark each test as part of the quality checking process.

What happened

6. Mr X applied for a taxi driver licence. He took the test in December 2019. The Authority told him in January that he had scored 52%. The Authority explained he had one more opportunity to pass.
7. Mr X took the test again in October. The Authority told him he had scored 49%. The Authority withdrew the application.
8. Mr X queried the result as he was sure he had scored 100%. In response, the Authority explained that each test is quality checked and his score remained at 49%. The Authority told Mr X how many points he had scored for each section. It said it could not provide more detailed feedback because disclosure is exempt under the Data Protection Act. However, there was an error in the complaint correspondence because, when providing a breakdown of the scores, the Authority wrongly said Mr X had scored 41/75 for the route questions which added an extra 10 points to the mark. The complaint correspondence wrongly implied Mr X had scored 59 points for the October test.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority. Both tests were marked by two examiners and on each occasion Mr X scored less than 60%. Mr X disputes the score but that does not mean the Authority scored the tests incorrectly. The Authority also warned Mr X that it would withdraw his application if he failed the second test.
10. There was an error in the complaint correspondence. I checked with the Authority who confirmed the tests scores of 52% and 49% and confirmed the reference to scoring 59% was a typing error. The Authority expressed an apology for this error. The Authority made an error but this does not require an investigation because the Authority has explained what happened and the error does not affect the outcome of Mr X’s licence application.
11. Mr X says the Authority withdrew his application before he was able to complain to us. However, we are not an appeal body and we cannot remark tests. We can only consider if the Authority followed the correct process. It followed the correct process by ensuring that each test goes through a quality checking process and by warning Mr X that his application would be withdrawn if he failed for a second time. There was no requirement for the Authority to delay withdrawing the application after Mr X failed the second test.
12. I also will not start an investigation because Mr X can complain to the ICO if he thinks the Authority should provide more detailed feedback. It is reasonable to expect him to do this because the ICO is the appropriate body to consider complaints about data protection and the release of information.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority and because Mr X could complain to the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman