Summary: Mr X represents Mr Y. He complains the Council failed to investigate Mr Y’s concerns about bullying and intimidation by licensed taxi drivers. We will not investigate this complaint. The events complained about occurred more than 12 months ago so are therefore late. And we do not consider that a failure to follow the complaints procedure causes enough personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr Y, is represented by someone I shall call Mr X. Mr X complains the Council:
• failed to look into Mr Y’s concerns about bullying and intimidation by other licensed taxi drivers
• failed to follow its complaints procedure; and
• failed to respond to requests for information

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr Y is a taxi driver who holds a licence issued by the Council. Mr X complains the Council failed to investigate Mr Y’s repeated allegations of bullying by other licensed taxi drivers from as early as 2011.
9. The Council says it installed a new complaint recording process in 2018, therefore has no record of complaints made by Mr Y before this time. It says it has no records of new complaints since 2018. It says if Mr Y wants to make a complaint against another driver it will be investigated. And, if the investigation identifies behaviour that questions the fitness and priority for the individual to hold a license, then it will act.
10. Mr X and Mr Y escalated the complaint. However, the Council failed to respond.
11. I asked the Council why it had not responded and sent it a copy of Mr X’s letter asking to escalate the complaint. In response, the Council says it has no record of receiving the request to escalate the complaint. Having reviewed it, it has it has nothing to add to its original response.
12. The information provided by Mr X concerns historic incidents occurring many years ago. He says we should investigate why the Council failed to act on Mr Y’s reports of bullying by other drivers.
13. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint made more than 12 months after the complainant becoming aware of the matter. But Mr Y has been aware of the issues he complains of for more than five years before bringing his complaint. His complaint is therefore late.
14. I have considered whether to exercise discretion and investigate this complaint. However, given the estimated ten-year period over which Mr X says the bullying took place, I believe it is unlikely any investigation now would reach a clear enough view of the Council’s actions.
15. Mr X also complains the Council failed to follow its complaints procedure. I do not intend to investigate this part of the complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not dealing with the substantive issue.
16. Finally, Mr X says the Council has failed to respond to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act.
17. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). That is because this is the body with specific powers and expertise to investigate Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations issues. The Information Commissioner’s Officer has powers which the Ombudsman does not have to require compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I will not investigate this complaint because:
• his complaint about the Council’s failure to act on allegations of bullying are late.
• it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about the complaints process alone; and
• It is reasonable to expect Mr X to refer his concerns about the Council’s responses to requests for information to the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman