Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about taxi licensing. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council has increased the cost of its Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks unfairly. Mr Y has also complained the Council has failed to properly respond to the complaint and explain the increase sufficiently.
2. Mr Y says this has affected him financially and caused him upset.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. 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 an organisation’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)
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In September 2021, the Council proposed an increase in its charges for enhanced DBS checks for taxi driver licensing from £67 to £94. It carried out a public consultation on various changes, including the increase in the charge. It received responses from approximately 60 drivers which it considered and responded to in its budget review.
8. The Council decided in February 2022 to increase the charges for DBS checks but to a cost of £79, rather than £94. This cost was explained and broken down into its parts in the Council’s budget review document. It also explained how drivers would within the next financial year be able to use a new online service to annually renew the DBS check at a lower cost.
9. Mr Y, a taxi driver, complained to the Council in March 2022. The Council responded in March, including providing Mr Y a link to its budget review document, before referring Mr Y to us in May.

Analysis

10. As explained in paragraph four, we cannot question whether a decision is right or wrong because a complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault with the decision-making process itself. In this case, the Council has proposed a change, consulted the public on the change, considered the responses and adjusted the change to take consideration of the responses received.
11. While Mr Y may consider the change to be unfair and he is unhappy with it, this does not mean there has been fault. The Council has considered relevant factors such as the cost to the Council itself and the comments from the public consultation itself. Consequently, it is unlikely we would find fault so we will not investigate.
12. As we are not considering the substantive issue in this complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council has responded to the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman