Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council stopped using him as a driver. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council considered safeguarding concerns about his behaviour. He said it ignored information he provided in his defence. He said the Council had banned him from driving for it in the future. He said that had affected his income. He wants it to review its decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received two reports of concern about Mr X’s behaviour as a driver. The Council considered these reports as safeguarding incidents. Following investigation, it decided to stop using Mr X as a driver. In its letter to him, it explained that was because it considered the incidents to be a breach of its Code of Conduct for Drivers. Mr X complained.
7. In the Council’s complaint response, it confirmed it had considered the concerns in line with its internal process. It also referred to its policy that allowed it the right to request the immediate removal of a driver, if in the Council’s opinion, they were not suitable to work with the user group.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
9. The Council followed the correct process when considering the reports about Mr X’s behaviour. It referred to its Code of Conduct for Drivers and internal policy. The Council has an agreement that entitles it to request the removal of a driver if they consider someone not suitable. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman