Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters concerning the licensing of his taxi. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s policy regarding the approval of new makes and models of vehicles to be used as taxis and its handling of his case when he wanted to change his taxi vehicle.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X’s representative and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered his representative’s comments.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X wanted to change the vehicle he uses as a taxi. Council policy states that new vehicle makes and models for taxi licensing have to be approved by its Licensing Panel. As there was a delay between Mr X applying to change his vehicle and the Panel hearing for this, he incurred costs in re-licensing the vehicle he would be replacing to ensure he kept his licence “live” as it had been due to expire.
8. Mr X’s representative argues the Council’s policy should be changed so that the Council holds a list of suitable vehicles for taxis or it allow officers to determine the issue thereby removing the need for applicants to wait for a panel hearing.
9. While I note these views, it is not our role to review the merits of council decisions or policies even though a complainant may disagree with them. Councils have wide discretion regarding what vehicles are suitable to be licensed as taxis and I have seen no evidence to suggest there was fault in the Council’s handling of this case.
10. Mr X’s representative says Mr X did not leave things to “the last minute” to apply to change his vehicle as the Council has implied. He says Mr X had made his request not one day before the expiration of his existing vehicle licence but six days before. However, this timeframe too gave little time for the change to take place.
11. In responding to my draft decision Mr X’s representative says Mr X had been unaware of the policy and that this is the case also for those involved in the taxi trade. He says the Council has not acted to publicise it. This is an issue Mr X, or his representative, can raise directly with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman