Summary: The Ombudsman should not pursue this complaint about the Council’s dealings with Mr X about taxi licensing matters. Part of the complaint has been resolved. On other points of complaint there is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about various matters related to the Council’s taxi licensing activities. He says the Council’s alleged faults deprive taxi drivers of the opportunity to be accompanied at interviews, prevent drivers having recordings of interviews and prevent Mr X contacting the Council as he wishes, including when he is representing others. Mr X suggests the Council’s attitude has some racist elements.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, 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 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 considered the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him and a member of his family. I obtained some information from the Council. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X is a taxi driver. He sometimes represents other drivers in dealings with the Council.

The Council’s standard letter inviting drivers to interview

6. The Council’s taxi licensing section interviews taxi drivers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (an ‘interview under caution’ or ‘PACE interview’). Mr X complained that the Council’s standard letter inviting a driver to a PACE interview implied the only person the Council would like to accompany a driver at that interview would be a legal representative, instead of also saying the driver could bring a friend or supporter. Mr X suggested this would lead many drivers to attend alone as they cannot afford a legal representative.
7. The Council accepted its guidance could be better and told Mr X it would improve this. After Mr X complained to us, the Council showed me the new template letter and accompanying notes in use from this month. These state a driver can be accompanied by a legal representative, friend or family member. The notes explain those people’s rights at the interview, stating a legal representative can speak during the interview but other accompanying people cannot.
8. The new information for drivers appears appropriately to address Mr X’s concern about the previous letter. I do not consider the Ombudsman could achieve more than the changes the Council has now made. So I shall not pursue this point further.
9. Replying to my draft decision, Mr X argued amending the letter did not resolve the complaint because of what happened while the previous letter was in use. He suggested we investigate how many PACE interviews the Council conducted then. I understand Mr X’s argument but it is in general terms. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to regulate or oversee the Council’s activities generally. Mr X has not shown evidence of a particular person or people being significantly disadvantaged by the content of the previous letter. So I shall not pursue this point further.
10. Mr X says the new letter’s provision that only a legal representative can speak for an interviewee during a PACE interview is unsatisfactory and systemically racist towards drivers who cannot afford legal representation. The question of who is entitled to speak during PACE interviews is a legal point about criminal investigations that is not appropriately for the Ombudsman to decide. In that context, it is not for me to decide whether it is systemically racist. If there is any concern about a driver’s ability to understand what is happening in an interview, interpretation should be arranged but that is a separate matter. I do not see grounds for the Ombudsman to pursue this point.

Supplying recordings of interviews

11. Mr X is dissatisfied the Council gives drivers a transcript of their PACE interview but does not always supply a recording. The Council says it considers such requests under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and sometimes refuses to supply the recording if it believes the recording will be used improperly.
12. This point is about whether the Council correctly follows data protection rules and guidance. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than the Ombudsman to decide this. So I have not taken a view either way on whether the Council is at fault and I shall not pursue this point further.

Council officers conducting interviews

13. Mr X asked if Council officers, rather than the police, can do PACE interviews. The Council says some of its staff can do PACE interviews.
14. Councils deal with various matters that can lead to criminal prosecutions, including offences related to operating taxis. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 says its codes of practice apply to ‘Persons other than police officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences or charging offenders…’ (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 67(9)) So the Act allows for people other than the police to do such interviews.
15. I see no evidence of fault in the principle of the Council doing such interviews. Mr X also questions if Council officers are properly trained for such interviews. If a particular PACE interview were to lead to a criminal trial, the court could consider any dispute about the Council’s power to conduct a particular interview. So we need not pursue this point.
16. Replying to a draft of this decision, Mr X argued the Council does not have authority to do PACE interviews. However, he offered no persuasive evidence. As explained above, the law does not restrict PACE interviews to police officers. Councils and other regulatory bodies do conduct interviews under caution.

The Council restricting Mr X’s contact with it

17. In January 2019, the Council told Mr X it would restrict how he could contact it for six months. During that time, the Council did not deal with emails Mr X sent about taxi-related matters though he could contact the Council by other means about those matters. The Council stated this restriction was because Mr X had been copying emails to a large number of recipients at the Council.
18. The Council is entitled to restrict how someone contacts it if communications are problematic. While Mr X might disagree, emailing large numbers of recipients can cause avoidable confusion, distraction and extra work. I see no fault in the Council imposing what appeared to be a specific, proportionate restriction for a limited period. It might have been less convenient for Mr X not to be able to email about taxi matters but that does not mean the Council was at fault.
19. The Council reviewed the restriction after six months. Mr X can now email about taxi matters again although the Council does not want him to copy emails to numerous recipients. One Council officer now acts as a single point of contact. Mr X says this is preventing or delaying substantive replies to his communications, including communications on behalf of other drivers. .
20. Mr X seems to contact the Council frequently. The Council is entitled to manage its communications with Mr X in this way, as long as it deals appropriately with any substantive issues that need a response. So I see no fault in Mr X having a single point of contact. Also, I do not see that having the single point of contact causes Mr X a significant personal injustice. I have not seen evidence of Mr X suffering specific problems as a result of a specific delayed reply or failure to reply. Mr X has commented in general terms that difficulties getting a response from the single point of contact cause people injustice. However, I have not seen evidence of a specific injustice to a specific person or people (who have authorised Mr X to represent them) resulting from the Council not replying or delaying replying. Again, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to regulate or oversee the Council’s activities generally.

The Council’s actions when Mr X represents other people

21. Mr X sometimes tells the Council he is contacting it on behalf of a particular driver or drivers. The Council asks for confirmation that Mr X has permission from the person or people. There is no fault in that.
22. Mr X reports the Council has then been considering Mr X’s communication and replying direct to the person he is representing rather than replying through Mr X. Mr X believes the Council is wrongly sidelining him and acting unlawfully.
23. I understand Mr X is dissatisfied but I do not consider his dissatisfaction is a significant enough injustice for the Ombudsman to devote time and public money investigating whether the Council is at fault here. Nor does the Council not replying through Mr X appear to cause Mr X any other significant injustice.
24. If anyone Mr X is representing believes they are being disadvantaged by this, they can complain to us (through Mr X, if they authorise him to complain to us) if they have not been able to resolve the matter with the Council. However, if we received any such complaint we would have to consider whether the person was suffering a significant injustice from the Council replying to them direct, bearing in mind they could show the replies to Mr X if they wished.

Mr X’s view of the Council’s complaints procedure

25. Mr X also told me he does not believe the Council has an effective, impartial complaints procedure and that there is systemic racism in the Council’s approach. Those are very general points. I can only deal with specific points of complaint that were put to the Council then brought to us.

Back to top

Final decision

26. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the part about the template letter has been resolved appropriately, the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider whether recordings should be released and on the other points there is either insufficient evidence of fault or not enough injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman