Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about MOT failures for a taxi. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and the complainant could have complained to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council’s MOT testing centre wrongly failed his taxi on two occasions. He says independent garages found no fault with handbrake. As a minimum Mr X wants the Council to refund the cost of the two unnecessary extra MOTs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and information about complaining to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA). I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X drives a taxi. He complained to the Council after the taxi failed its MOT and re-test due to the condition of the handbrake. Mr X said he had taken the taxi to other garages and to an independent MOT centre and they found no problems. Mr X asked the Council to refund the money he spent on two unnecessary MOTs.
5. The Council checked the inspection sheets for the test and re-test and said the vehicle showed a clear failure; the Council explained why the brake did not meet the standard. The Council said it appeared the brake cable had been adjusted before the third test when the vehicle passed the MOT. The Council said an officer spoke to an officer from the DVSA who was doing an audit; the DVSA officer said a vehicle can only be tested as presented regardless of other tests that may have been done elsewhere. The Council declined to refund the cost of the additional tests and explained Mr X could have complained to the DVSA.
6. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. We are not mechanics and cannot determine if a test has been properly conducted in terms of the technicalities. However, the Council responded appropriately to the complaint by checking with the testers, considering the test records and explaining why the brake failed the test. The records show there was a marked improvement between the re-test and the third test. This was an appropriate response to the complaint.
7. As I have said, we are not mechanics. If Mr X thought the MOT had not been carried out correctly, and the results were at odds with the view of other garages, he could have complained to the DVSA. The DVSA is the correct body to consider complaints about how a MOT has been conducted. Mr X had 14 days to appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mr X could have complained to the DVSA.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman