Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a minicab driver. The driver and operating company are not in our jurisdiction. Also, it is unlikely we will find fault in the way Transport for London considered the complaint. And its actions have not caused the complainant any injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I will call Ms J, says Transport for London (TfL) will not help her get her possessions back from a minicab driver.
2. She wants TfL to:
• get her possessions back
• take away the minicab firm’s licence; and
• pay her compensation

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered the information provided by Ms J and TfL.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs J booked a minicab for a journey. During the telephone call to book the minicab she was told the fare would be £25. Ms J then said she needed a larger car because she had a lot of possessions. The operator told her a larger car would cost more. Ms J then told the operator that she only needed a normal size car.
6. Ms J says the driver charged her £50 for the journey. She says she refused to pay so the driver refused to return her possessions.
7. She complained to TfL which licences minicab operators.
8. TfL says it investigated Ms J’s complaint. It confirmed it listened to a recording of Ms J’s booking call and:
• Ms J was quoted £25 for a normal sized private hire vehicle (PHV)
• Ms J told the operator she would need a bigger car because she had a lot of items.
• The operator told Ms J a bigger car would cost more so Ms J insisted on a normal sized car
9. In response to its enquiries the operator told TfL that the driver informed Ms J the fare would be £50 because of the number of bags and items she wanted to transport. It says she initially agreed but on arrival at the destination she refused to pay. The police became involved, and the driver was told he could keep Ms J’s belongings until she paid. And that if she had not paid after two weeks the driver could dispose of her belongings.
10. TfL says it has taken appropriate action against the operator. However, the issue of the driver keeping her belongings is a civil matter and we cannot take action against him to return them. As both Ms J and the driver have reported the incident to the police and both have crime numbers, TfL suggested Ms J contact the police.

Assessment

11. Ms J complained to TfL which licences the taxi company, and it investigated the complaint and contacted the company to find out what happened.
12. Ms J is not satisfied with TfL’s actions. She wants the company’s licence removed and compensation, as well as her belongings back.
13. The injustice claimed by Ms J stems from the incident between her and the PHV driver and not TfL. The PHV driver and operator company are not within our jurisdiction, and we cannot therefore investigate the issue further or force the driver to return her belongings.
14. TfL has investigated the matter in its role as licensing authority and says it has taken what it considers to be appropriate action. It is unlikely we would find fault in the way it decided to act. And this point does not directly affect Ms J. It has confirmed the issue of Ms J’s belongings is a civil matter between her and the driver.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. It is unlikely we will find fault in the way TfL considered her complaint. Nor do we consider the actions of TfL have caused Ms J any personal injustice.
16. The incident at the heart of this complaint is a civil matter between Ms J and the PHV driver and/or operator which we cannot investigate as neither the driver nor the operator is within our jurisdiction. Therefore we cannot require the return of her possessions.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman