Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s handling of his taxi licensing application as it would have been reasonable for him to await the Council’s decision and appeal. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his personal information and information request as the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider this issue.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the way the Council dealt with his taxi licensing application. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his personal information and information request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner 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 reviewed the information provided by Mr X, shared my draft decision with him and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X was arrested in 2015 for a criminal offence but later found not-guilty following a trial. After his arrest, the Council withdrew Mr X’s hackney carriage taxi driver’s licence. When he was found not-guilty he applied for a new licence. Mr X complains about the information presented to the licensing sub-committee and claims officers misled the sub-committee, leading to a recommendation to refuse his application. He is also concerned about the information the Council holds about him in its records.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. While Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his licensing application his injustice stems from its recommendation to refuse his application. At that point Mr X withdrew his application but if he felt the recommendation was wrong and wished to challenge it, it would have been reasonable for him to allow the Council to determine the application and appeal against its decision to the magistrates’ court under S59 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
7. We cannot say the Council should have granted Mr X a licence and we cannot separately investigate Mr X’s complaint about the information the sub-committee took into account as these issues are too closely linked.
8. If Mr X has concerns about information the Council holds about him, and/or about its handling of his information requests, he should put these points to the Information Commissioner as it is better placed to deal with such complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to let the Council determine his application and appeal against the decision to refuse his application. Mr X’s concerns about data protection and the Council’s handling of his subject access request are more appropriate for consideration by the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman