Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to allow the complainant to work as a taxi driver on school contracts. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council will not let him work as a taxi driver on school contracts. Mr X says the Council has not considered all the evidence and has relied on information from 2014.

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 an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered the safeguarding report from 2020 and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Taxi drivers

5. The Council will only issue a taxi driver licence if it is satisfied the person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The Council will consider any convictions a person has when it makes this assessment.
6. The Council does extra checks on taxi drivers who apply to work on school contracts or adult social care contracts. This is because the driver will regularly come into contact with children and vulnerable adults. A person can be approved to hold a taxi licence but not be approved for school/social care contract work. This is because the work involves frequent contact with children and vulnerable adults, with low supervision and direct contact with the public.

What happened

7. Mr X has a conviction from the 1990s for aiding and abetting an assault on a woman. He also has a conviction for an offence relating to tax. There have also been some motoring offences.
8. In 2014 Mr X applied to become a taxi driver. The Council wrote to him in 2014 to say it would not permit him to do school contract work. This was not an issue in 2014 because Mr X did not want to do school work at that time.
9. In 2020 the Council again considered Mr X’s application to be a taxi driver. Mr X spoke at a hearing and gave information about the convictions, his remorse, and assured the Council that the events in the past do not reflect his current conduct or circumstances. The Council weighed all the evidence and decided Mr X is a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence.
10. Mr X applied in 2020 to do school transport work. The Council asked its safeguarding team to consider the application. The safeguarding officer did not support Mr X’s application to do school work. The officer noted that if Mr X was convicted of the same offence now he would be required to sign the sex offenders register and may have received a stricter sentence. The safeguarding officer included this in his assessment of the application to show how the offence would be regarded if it had occurred today. The Council decided Mr X is not suitable to do school transport work.
11. Mr X says the Council has decided he can safely work with any passenger during standard taxi work. Mr X says that for school work he would be accompanied by an assistant. Mr X says he was only the driver when the offence occurred and he was not involved in the assault. Mr X says the Council has unfairly judged him and he does not pose a risk to anyone.

Assessment

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Although Mr X has convictions the Council has considered all the circumstances, and submissions from Mr X, and has decided he can hold a taxi driver licence. But, there are stricter rules relating to school and social care work because it involves contact with children and vulnerable adults. For this reason, in 2014 and 2020, Mr X’s application was referred to safeguarding. I have seen the 2020 safeguarding report and it is clear the Council considered all the evidence afresh and did not just rely on the decision that was made in 2014.
13. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision but we do not act as an appeal body and we cannot decide whether Mr X should be allowed to do school work. That is a decision for the Council to make. We can only intervene if there is fault in the way a council has made a decision and I have not seen any suggestion of fault. The Council has explained to Mr X there is a higher safeguarding threshold for school work and that is why it has refused the application. We have no power to change the decision or tell the Council it must let Mr X do school work.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman