Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has been institutionally racist towards the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because some issues have been considered by the court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains he has been racially discriminated against, by the Council, in relation to his application for a taxi driver licence.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended). The magistrates consider appeals about licensing decisions.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered the licence application decision letter and a transcript of an interview Mr X had with licensing officers. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. If someone disagrees with the outcome of an application for a taxi driver licence they have 21 days to appeal to the magistrates. A council can decide not to issue a licence if it decides the person is not ‘a fit and proper person’ to hold a licence.

What happened

7. Mr X applied for a taxi driver licence. He says the Council refused his application due to institutional racism and because a machine in the reception would not accept his postcode.
8. The Council refused his application because it decided Mr X was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The Council provided reasons for this decision which included that Mr X would not accept the explanations provided regarding the machine in reception. The Council also said it had concerns about Mr X’s attitude and behaviour following some verbal interactions with staff. The Council referred to feedback from another council which reported concerns over Mr X’s conduct. The Council stated that Mr X had been angry, shouting and was quick to temper. The letter said officers had found Mr X’s behaviour, at times, to be threatening. The decision letter noted that Mr X denied the allegations and had stressed his high Uber ratings as a taxi driver (he is licenced by another council). The letter told Mr X he had 21 days to appeal to court if he disagreed with the decision.
9. Mr X appealed to the magistrates’ court. The court rejected his appeal because it was late. Mr X says the Council wasted time which meant his appeal was late.
10. Mr X says the Council rejected his application due to institutional racism and due to a minor mix-up over the machine in reception.

Assessment

11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
12. I have read the decision letter and a 39 page transcript of an interview between Mr X and officers. Mr X and the Council had differing views about many events and conversations. However, none of the issues discussed involved racism or allegations of racism. Mr X denied allegations during the interview and made comments about officers from this Council and other councils. He said he had dealt with 27,000 customers without having problems. He also said he had only applied for a licence because he was testing how quickly different councils issue licences. But, he did not raise concerns of racism. In addition, the reasons for refusing a licence were based on observations of Mr X’s conduct and, again, there is no evidence of racism.
13. Mr X alleges his appeal to the court was late due to delay by the Council. However, the decision letter clearly explained the appeal deadline. I cannot investigate this issue because the court rejected his appeal and the law prevents me from investigating any issue that has been considered in court.
14. I will not investigate whether the Council should have issued Mr X with a licence. This is because the court is the appropriate body to consider appeals about licensing decisions and Mr X could have made an on-time appeal to the court.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because some issues have been considered by the court. In addition, Mr X could have made an on-time appeal to the court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman