Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a taxi company licensed by the Council. This is because the issue does not concern an administrative function of the Council. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation into the taxi company as it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains a taxi company failed to attend his booking. As a result he had to make alternative arrangements for his journey.

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)

3. We cannot investigate a complaint where the body complained about is not responsible for the issue being raised. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X booked a taxi company for a journey in 2019. He agreed a fee with the company but the driver later told him he would need to pay more. He agreed to this but on the day of his journey the driver did not attend. He tried to contact the driver and the company without success and had to make alternative arrangements.
6. Mr X complained to the Council, which licences the taxi company, and it investigated the complaint and contacted the company to find out what happened. The company apologised and agreed to pay Mr X compensation but Mr X is not happy with the amount offered. He also believes the Council is wrong not to issue a written warning.
7. Mr X’s injustice stems from the actions of the taxi company and not Council. The taxi company is not itself a body within our jurisdiction and we cannot therefore investigate the issue further or say it must pay more.
8. The Council has investigated the matter in its role as licensing authority and decided not to issue the company a written warning. It has explained the reasons for its decision and it is unlikely we would find fault in the way it was reached. It also does not directly affect Mr X. It has negotiated compensation for Mr X and if he is unhappy with the level of compensation issued he would need to take the issue up with the taxi company; he may also wish to consider legal action against the company.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because it is the taxi company, rather than the Council, which caused Mr X’s claimed injustice and it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s handling of his complaint about the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman