Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant’s car could not be approved as a taxi. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision that his car no longer meets the requirements to be licensed as a taxi.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. The includes Mr X’s complaints and the Council’s replies. I considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council inspected Mr X’s car in March and found eight defects. It invited him to get the problems repaired before a re-test. The Council did a second test in April but found that four defects remained. The Council refused the application and said Mr X could no longer use the car as a taxi. The tests are carried out by DVSA approved examiners.
5. Mr X raised many complaints. These include, for example, that the defects had not been properly described, that the car had passed inspections previously with the same defects, and the Council’s website gave inaccurate information about the contents required for the first aid kit.
6. In response, the Council confirmed that, after checking with DVSA examiners, there was no suggestion that the defects were not properly described. It explained the examiners inspect cars on the condition that exists on that day, regardless of previous passes or fails. It agreed there had been a lack of clarity on the website about the first aid kit but denied Mr X’s suggestion this was deliberate. The Council explained, in detail, why the defects meant the car failed. The defects included the spare wheel not being secure and a car part allowing excessive movement.
7. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X disagrees with the outcome of the inspections and continues to assert the defects were not properly described – and says the Council agreed. But the inspections were carried out by professional examiners and it is not fault for a council to follow the findings of qualified examiners who also found that the defects were properly described. There is nothing to suggest the wording was unclear and while there was confusion regarding the first aid kit, this was only one reason why the vehicle failed. And, the Council said it is unlikely the car would have failed if that had been the only issue.
8. Mr X says he has complained to the Information Commissioner because the Council has not provided information he requested. He also says the Council has not provided proof that it invited him to a meeting which it then alleged he did not attend. I appreciate there are many issues that Mr X is unhappy about. But, it is not my role to address every query or a dispute a person has. The key issue is whether there was fault in the Council’s decision not to approve the car and, as I have said, there is insufficient evidence of such fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman