Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Cambridge City Council (21 016 093)

Category : Environment and regulation > Licensing

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 02 Mar 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed completing a taxi change of ownership application. This is because any injustice to the complainant is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains that the Council delayed completing his application to transfer the ownership of his taxi. Mr X said the application took two weeks which cause him frustration and meant he had to insure his vehicle longer than he planned.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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
  • any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
  • 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

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because I do not consider that any injustice he has suffered is significant enough to justify our further involvement. The delay in completing the application was relatively short, and the Council have apologised to Mr X for this and for not making it clear what information he needed to provide. I am satisfied that the Council has responded to these matters appropriately.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page