Summary: Mr B complains the Council refused his application to work as a taxi driver and a passenger assistant on Council contracts and did not issue him with a Council approved identification badge. Mr B says the Council’s rejection of his application has prevented him from working and put him in financial difficulty. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council refused his application to work as a taxi driver and a passenger assistant on Council contracts and did not issue him with a Council approved identification badge. Mr B feels the Council did not explore the reason he had offences and allegations listed on his Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) certificate.
2. Mr B says the Council’s rejection of his application has prevented him from working and put him in financial difficulty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• Mr B’s complaint and the information he provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the Council’s policies and procedures.
6. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance

7. Councils have a statutory duty to ensure that their functions and any services they contract out have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. (Department of Education, Working Together to Safeguard Children)
8. The Council require all drivers and passenger assistants who work on its contracts to have an Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) transport badge.
9. The OCC badge application procedure includes an enhanced DBS check. If the applicant’s DBS check is not clear (for example it details convictions or cautions), the Council sends a letter to applicant and their employer telling them and offering to hold a risk assessment meeting.
10. If the applicant requests a risk assessment meeting, the Council asks them to complete a risk assessment document from the information on their enhanced DBS and their employer to give a reference.
11. The Council holds a risk assessment meeting which gives the applicant an opportunity to offer any mitigation.
12. Following the risk assessment meeting, the Council’s risk assessment panel assesses whether the applicant poses an acceptable risk to the individuals who they would be working with if a badge is issued. The Council decides each case on its own merits, and there are three possible results:
• An Oxfordshire County Council Badge is granted.
• An Oxfordshire County Council Badge is denied, and the applicant will be offered the right to appeal a risk assessment panel’s decision.
• An Oxfordshire County Council Badge is denied with no right of appeal.
13. The Council writes to the applicant and their employer with the result of the application.
14. If the Council grants the applicant an appeal, it holds another risk assessment meeting to give the applicant a further opportunity to offer any mitigation. Following this meeting, the risk assessment panel decides whether a badge should be granted. The Council writes to the applicant and their employer with the result of the appeal.

What happened

15. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
16. Mr B applied to the Council for an OCC badge in August 2018 to enable him to work on contracts for Social Services and Education. He completed an enhanced DBS application in September 2018.
17. The DBS told the Council in June 2019 that Mr B’s DBS contained convictions, cautions and additional information. The Council wrote to Mr B and asked him to provide a copy of his enhanced DBS disclosure and to complete a risk assessment form. It also asked Mr B’s employer to provide him with a reference.
18. Mr B gave the Council the information it asked for. He disclosed that he had 29 convictions and the police had recorded non-conviction information on his DBS check.
19. In July 2019, the Council held a risk assessment meeting. The meeting was attended by the Council’s Supported Transport Manager, Transport Quality Safeguarding Officer, Assistant Designated Officer and Mr B. The Council kept a full transcript of the meeting. At the end of the meeting, the Council members considered Mr B’s static and dynamic risk factors and assessed him as being at high-risk of reoffending. The Council decided not to allow Mr B to work with Oxfordshire County Council Transport Hub Contactors for Social Services and Education. It did not issue Mr B an OCC badge.
20. Mr B appealed the decision and the Council held a further risk assessment meeting in October 2019. The meeting was attended by the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer, Supported Transport Services Manager and Mr B. The Council kept a full transcript of the meeting. The Council decided Mr B had not provided any further evidence that would mitigate or lower his risk. The Council upheld its original decision to refuse Mr B’s application for an OCC badge.
21. The Council wrote to Mr B with the result of his appeal in November 2019. It told him that, “following careful consideration of all the information available the panel have decided that the risk you present is unacceptable and therefore your application for an OCC Approved Identification Badge is refused”. The Council also wrote to Mr B's employer with the result of the appeal.

Analysis

22. The Council has a statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children (Department of Education, Working Together to Safeguard Children). In line with this, the Council has an identification badge scheme to regulate those who work as taxi drivers and passenger assistants for Social Services and Education.
23. The Council evidenced robust decision making in this case. The Council reviewed the information provided by Mr B and gave him the opportunity to make verbal representations. It considered both the static and dynamic risks Mr B posed and any factors that could mitigate these risks. Taking account of all the information at its disposal, the Council decided Mr B was high-risk and could not work on Council contracts for Social Services and Education. This is a decision it was entitled to make.
24. When Mr B appealed the decision, the Council arranged for members of staff that had not previously been involved in the case to carry out the appeal. The Council considered the information provided by Mr B and gave him another opportunity to make verbal representations. The Council decided Mr B had not provided any evidence that would mitigate or lower his risk and it upheld the decision not to allow him to work on Council contracts for Social Services and Education. Again, this was a decision it was entitled to make.
25. The Council followed its procedure when it assessed Mr B’s application. It carried out a robust risk assessment taking account of all the available evidence. There was no fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman