Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s failure to take action against a limousine hire company which he says is acting unlawfully. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence that Mr B has been caused injustice as a result of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council is at fault for failing to take action against a limousine hire company which is operating unlawfully. He says due to the close proximity of the business to his home his amenity is negatively affected.

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 B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B lives close to a limousine hire business which is licenced by the Council but which is based in another council area.
5. Mr B complained to the Council about the way the business is operating and raised concerns about cross border hiring and unlawful activity, contrary to the 1976 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.
6. The Council considered his complaint, and the legal text he provided to support his claims that what was going on was unlawful. It told him it would continue to monitor the operation of the private hire business but that if he had any evidence to show vehicles were being made directly available for hire to provide details of this to the Council.
7. Mr B remained dissatisfied with the Council’s reply and in response to further communication from him it confirmed its view of the legal position regarding the licence arrangements for the business and told Mr B that it did not consider it had any grounds to revoke or refuse to renew the operating licence.
8. Unhappy with the Council’s decision, Mr B complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

9. The Council has considered Mr B’s complaint but it has not seen evidence which would lead it to take action against the licence operator. Mr B says the Council should have used test purchasing as an investigation aid but it is for the Council to decide what lengths to go to in investigating matters and we cannot review the merits of decisions it has properly made.
10. Mr B says he is being caused personal injustice because of the illegal operations taking place at the business. However, he would be affected in the same way by the lawful running of the business because this too would involve vehicle noise, customer visits and general day to day activity.
11. Mr B says his complaint hinges on the Council’s failure to properly understand the relevant legislation covering cross border hiring and that its failure has led to a threat to public safety and the erosion of localism by the operator. However, it is for the Council to come to a view on what is taking place and in the professional judgement of officers it has no grounds to revoke or refuse to renew the licence. We are not investigating the complaint because even if Mr B’s interpretation was correct, and the Council’s wrong, his personal injustice arises from a business operating close by rather than because the business is operating illegally.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence that Mr B has been caused injustice as a result of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman