Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to restrict his contact under its unreasonable behaviour policy. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council applying its unreasonable behaviour policy to him after he says he raised legitimate concerns about aspects of its taxi licensing policy. He says he did not receive proper responses to the issues which he raised and that he is now restricted to minimal contact with Council officers and members.

Back to top

The Ombludsman’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
• 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and its policy on unreasonable behaviour. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says his concerns about licensing policy have led him to complain about the Council’s measures in his role as chairman of the local taxi association. He says he has argued that some of its licensing conditions are unworkable and may be unlawful and this has put him in confrontation with its senior officers. In August 2020 he received a warning letter form the Council advising him that he must cease making repeat complaints and emails and also making unsubstantiated allegations and derogatory remarks about its staff. It told him that this was breaching its policy on unreasonable behaviour and if he did not cease then sanctions would be applied to him.
5. In March 2021 the Council wrote and informed him that his conduct had not changed sufficiently, and that the Council was restricting his contact and means of communication for six months. At the end of that period his conduct would be reviewed.
6. Mr X believes the action was unfair and an attempt to silence him and his concerns about policy, in particular the use of CCTV in taxis. The Council says it has responded to his concerns about the policy and he has refused to accept the views of its officers and members. His disagreement with the policy gave him no reasons to display unacceptable behaviour with its staff and his contact was restricted in response to this, not his views.
7. The Council says the decision to carry out the sanctions was not taken lightly and was subject to a panel of officers and legal representatives, not just a single manager. It has confirmed that a leading authority on taxi licensing, who is an independent lawyer has been asked to review the policy and the service and that Mr X had no grounds to continue his persistent complaints.
8. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. In this case the council followed its procedure and issued a warning and then considered the sanctions with an appropriate panel before applying the sanctions.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman