Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about taxi licensing. This is because there is not enough significant injustice to justify our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains that the Council’s booking system for a test to obtain a taxi license failed to correctly book his test appointment but still took payment. Mr Y then attended the test centre to find that his test was not booked.
2. Mr Y says he had to take annual leave to attend so he was caused inconvenience and payment for the test was taken.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y tried to book a test on the Council’s website, as required before he could be granted a taxi license. He paid £40 to the Council and received an email confirming payment had been received.
6. Mr Y then attended the test centre in July 2021 to take the test but was told his test had not been booked and he could not take the test that day. Mr Y says he was told at the test centre that several people had had problems booking tests on mobile phones as they had to both pick their test time and date but then needed to confirm this at the end of the booking. Mr Y says he was told he should book again on a computer.
7. Mr Y complained to the Council on the same day. Shortly afterwards this was acknowledged by the Council.
8. The Council then responded in October. It apologised in its delay in responding. It also said it had now refunded Mr Y’s payment in full of the £40. It said it had tested its booking system, including on mobile phones. It said it received most of its bookings via mobile devices. Mr Y then approached us in November.

Analysis

9. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. We aim to put people back into the position they would have been in had there have been no fault. In this case, the Council has already refunded the £40 booking costs to Mr Y. His remaining injustice is therefore the inconvenience of having taken time off work to attend a test which he was then unable to.
10. While this will have caused Mr Y frustration, this remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough significant injustice to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman