Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a taxi licence renewal. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. We would also be unable to achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council:

• Delayed granting him a taxi licence and kept rejecting his application. It was not until he involved the solicitors that his licence was granted
• Discriminated against him based on his race and he believes the rejection of his application was because he is not white
• Told its workers not to talk to him but his white counterparts have not had the same problem
• Has failed to respond to his complaint and he does not agree with the response.

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. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says he would like the member of staff he believes discriminated against him to be removed from his post.
7. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider the Council’s administrative actions and if there is fault ask the Council to rectify the situation. However, it is not our role to tell the Council to remove a member of staff from their post. Therefore, we are unable to achieve the outcome Mr X is looking for.
8. The Council has denied the allegations and has said Mr X submitted his application at least three times without correct evidence. It also says Mr X did not follow its recommendation that he submit his application at least six weeks before the date of expiry.
9. Mr X does not have tangible evidence to show the Council treated him differently due to his race and not due to the explanation given by the Council.
10. As a result, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
11. In cases where we do not investigate the matters in a complaint, we do not separately investigate the Council’s complaint handling process.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. We are also unable to achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman