Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr D’s complaint about the way the Council recorded the outcome of a licensing board hearing. Further consideration of the complaint would not achieve any more for Mr D.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr D, complains the Council incorrectly said Mr D had been given a written caution for his behaviour and was banned from a taxi depot for a period of two years, when this was not the outcome of an agreement and hearing. Mr D also complains the Council published the outcome despite agreeing the matter would stay behind closed doors, and he wants the Council to amend its records.

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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, 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 D provided and the Council’s response to his complaints. I sent a draft decision to Mr D and invited comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr D has explained that staff at a depot for taxis complained Mr D had been rude. Mr D disputes this and says he had witness statements and a recording of the incident, but the Council scheduled a meeting of the licensing board to consider whether Mr D was a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold a taxi licence.
6. Mr D instructed a barrister to represent him at the hearing and says no findings were made against him. Mr D’s barrister and an officer from the Council met and agreed Mr D would accept a warning letter and make an undertaking not to visit the depot for two years. But when Mr D received the letter, this said the committee had decided to issue Mr D with a written caution regarding his conduct and he must comply with a two year ban from visiting the depot. Mr D also complains other parties were aware of this letter and information regarding the hearing was in the public domain.
7. In response to Mr D’s complaints, the Council has now issued a revised letter that says it is a warning letter and confirms Mr D’s undertaking not to visit the depot for two years from the date of the licensing board meeting.
8. While Mr D remains dissatisfied with the way the Council has handled this matter, the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council has now corrected the wording of the letter to reflect Mr D’s understanding of the agreement made at the licensing board hearing. Further consideration of the complaint would not achieve any more for Mr D.
9. If Mr D considers the Council has incorrectly published his personal data and incorrectly recorded information about the matter on its files, these are matters better considered by the Information Commissioner (ICO). Mr D can ask the data controller at the Council to rectify personal data that he considers is inaccurate on a matter of fact. The data controller must reply within a month and if the request is refused, Mr D can complain to the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint would not achieve any more for Mr D.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman