Summary: Mr X, who is a taxi driver, complains about how the Council dealt with him when it caught him driving in a bus lane. He is also unhappy the Council has not acted against a public house he says served an intoxicated customer. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaints. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant personal injustice to warrant the Ombudsman’s involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X, who is a taxi driver, is unhappy with how the Council dealt with him when it caught him driving in a bus lane. He is also unhappy the Council has not acted against a public house he says served an intoxicated customer.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says he drove away from a potential customer (Mr Y) who he believed to be intoxicated. This was because he did not want to carry an intoxicated passenger in his taxi. Mr X says the landlady of a nearby public house complained to the Council. She said Mr Y fell over when Mr X drove away.
6. Mr X says the Council checked CCTV footage and it did not show Mr Y falling over. But it did show Mr X driving in a bus lane – which he admits. The Council wrote to Mr X and issued him with a formal warning. Mr X complained to the Council. He wanted to know why it had not acted against the public house for serving Mr Y – who he said was clearly intoxicated. Mr X also obtained details of the number of taxis caught driving in a bus lane. He wanted to know why the Council had fined them, and not issued them with a warning, like Mr X. He also complained the Council had told the landlady of the public house the action taken against Mr X.
7. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaints. It said the landlady of the public house had not reported Mr X for driving away from Mr Y. It was instead a member of staff from the public house. The Council said it had told them what action it could take against a taxi driver, but not how it had dealt with the complaint about Mr X.
8. The Council explained to Mr X it had discussed the allegation against the public house at its ‘Responsible Authorities Group’. Because there had been no other concerns raised it decided not to take any action. It said there was no evidence Mr Y was intoxicated.
9. It explained to Mr X that when its licensing team witnesses a licensed vehicle driving through a bus lane, it always issues a warning letter. This is because it is a breach of licensing conditions. It said Mr X could have appealed the warning but decided not to.
10. The role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault. We cannot question a council’s decision if there was no fault or flaw in the decision-making process. We also do not have the resources to consider all the complaints we receive – we only look at the most serious. In deciding whether to investigate a complaint, we need to consider various tests. These include the likelihood of finding fault, and the injustice caused to the person complaining.
11. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint about the public house potentially serving an intoxicated person. The Council has explained why it felt no further action was appropriate. This is a decision it was entitled to take. There is also no evidence its decision directly affected Mr X. The Council has told Mr X it did not disclose any information about the action it took against him. It is difficult to see what more an investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve.
12. Mr X is unhappy the Council issued him with a warning for driving in a bus lane. The Council has explained that when it witnesses this it always issues the person with a warning. I see no fault here – the Council is simply applying its own policy – as it is entitled to do. Mr X feels it is unfair other drivers have been issued with a fine – rather than a warning. But these were offences identified in different circumstances. Mr X chose not to appeal the warning. On balance, I do not think there is enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Also, there is not enough evidence the alleged fault has caused Mr X significant personal injustice. He has been issued a warning for an offence he admits he committed. An investigation by the Ombudsman is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant personal injustice to warrant the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman