Summary: Mr X complains about the actions of the Council’s Licensing Unit and its involvement in a spot check operation which targeted his street trading vehicle. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council’s Licensing Unit acted without authority when a stop check took place and defects were discovered on his street trading vehicle. He says the Council should not have been involved because he does not trade in the Council area and that his honour and dignity were affected by its discriminatory behaviour.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X operates a street trading vehicle outside the Council’s area and is licensed by another council.
5. The Council, police and DVSA carried out a joint operation to carry out spot checks on private hire, hackney carriage and street trading vehicles. As part of this operation, the police stopped Mr X’s vehicle when he was driving it in Bolton. Council officers inspected Mr X’s trading papers and the police and DVSA undertook a vehicle inspection. The latter resulted in the discovery of a number of vehicle defects, including one that required an immediate prohibition to be issued.
6. Mr X complained to the Council that as he does not operate in the Council’s area, he should not have undergone inspection by officers.
7. The Council responded by explaining the nature of the joint operation and that it had been a police decision to stop and pull him over. It said the police were able to do this regardless of whether the vehicle was licensed to trade in the Council’s area. It also made the point that until Mr X had been pulled over and his papers checked, Council officers would not have known he was licensed by another council. The Council did not uphold his complaint.

Assessment

8. While I understand Mr X is not happy the spot check and vehicle inspection took place, I have see no evidence to suggest there was fault in the way the Council acted. It was the police and not Council officers who decided to stop his vehicle and Council officers properly carried out their duties in checking his paperwork.
9. Mr X says he knows of other traders who have also been stopped and who do not trade within the Council area. He says such action is not acceptable until trading has been witnessed but this was not a necessary pre-condition of the spot check and there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman