Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council investigated an allegation made against him and how it handled his complaint. Mr X says this has caused him distress. The Council acted appropriately and is not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council investigated an allegation made against him by a customer when he was driving his licensed taxi. He said the investigating officer delayed telling him about the allegation and delayed the investigation. He said they failed to properly investigate, was oppressive and biased. Mr X also says the Council delayed dealing with his complaint and he is not satisfied with the response. This has caused Mr X distress, he was worried the Council would revoke his license following the investigation. Mr X would like the Council to make changes within the authority and train staff to ensure other drivers do not receive the same experience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have only considered the Council’s investigation into the recent allegation against Mr X made by care home staff, and his complaint about the same.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have considered the complaint, documents provided by the complainant, documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s Complaint Policy

6. The Council’s complaint policy is available online.
7. The policy says the Council will acknowledge a complaint within five working days of receipt.
8. The complaint is passed to the service area for investigation and the Council aims to provide a response within ten working days. Where the complaint is complex, the Council may ask for an extension.
9. If the customer is unhappy with the response, they may ask for their complaint to be escalated to stage two.
10. The Council aims to complete a stage two investigation within 20 working days. If the investigation is likely to take longer, it will contact the customer to explain the reason for the delay and when to expect a full response.

The Council’s Licensing Enforcement Policy

11. The enforcement policy says the primary consideration of the Council's Licensing Authority is to protect and promote the safety of passengers, pedestrians, and other road users. It monitors licence holders to ensure compliance.
12. The Council investigates and responds to complaints made by the public and undertakes proactive inspections and compliance testing. Officers will also carry out relevant checks to ensure licence holders are “fit and proper” (the statutory test) to hold a licence. Any breach of the required standards and policies may result in suspension or revocation of a licence, or any action deemed appropriate by the Council’s Licensing Authority, for example, a warning or prosecution.

What happened

13. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.

The investigation

14. Mr X is a licensed taxi driver. He has several clients that live in care homes.
15. In early July 2023, the Council received a complaint about Mr X from a member of staff at a care home (Ms S).
16. The following week, an officer (the officer) contacted Ms S about their complaint.
17. In early August, the officer emailed Mr X and told him about the complaint. The following day, Mr X responded to the officer and explained his position.
18. In late August, the officer received a response from Ms S.
19. At the end of August, the officer invited Mr X to interview. They arranged a date in the middle of September. The officer explained this was after their annual leave.
20. The interview took place as arranged. The officer and an assistant officer from the Council attended, as did Mr X and his representative. The Council recorded the interview.
21. The same day, the officer emailed Ms S. The officer received a response from the care home saying Ms S was on sick leave. The care home would not provide Ms S’s personal details. The officer had no other way of contacting her.
22. At the beginning of October, the Council contacted Mr X’s representative. The representative replied in late October and asked for an update which the Council provided the same day.
23. In late November, the officer tried to contact Ms S but did not receive a response.
24. At the end of November, Mr X’s representative asked the officer for an update. The same day, the officer tried to contact Ms S again but did not receive a response. The officer updated the representative.
25. Mr X’s representative asked for an update in mid-December. The Council responded.
26. The officer tried to contact Ms S in mid-December. She was still on sick leave.
27. Ms S returned to work shortly after. The officer had gone on annual leave over the Christmas period.
28. At the end of January 2024, the officer wrote to Mr X and said they had reviewed the information and completed the investigation. The decision was to take no further action. The letter apologised for the delay completing the investigation and explained this was because the officer was awaiting a statement from Ms S.

Mr X’s complaint

29. In early February 2024, Mr X complained about the conduct of the officer investigating the matter. He said the officer delayed telling him about the allegation against him and delayed completing the investigation. He said they were biased and oppressive during the investigation.
30. A week later, the Council confirmed receipt of the complaint and said it would take longer than the usual 10 days to investigate and reply.
31. The Council issued a stage one response in early March.
32. A week later, Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two.
33. The following week, Mr X sent a further letter to the Council saying the Council had not acknowledged his request for a stage two investigation.
34. A few days later, the Council issued a stage two response. The Council said the officer was professional and appropriate in her manner and there was no evidence of bias. The officer found no further action was required, none of the complaints were upheld and the findings were in Mr X’s favour. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It apologised for not providing a stage one response within ten working days and referred to the earlier notification that it would take longer.
35. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman at the beginning of April.

Analysis

The original investigation

36. The Council’s enforcement policy explains its duty is to protect passengers and it will investigate complaints made by the public. Following the complaint made by Ms S, the Council had a duty to investigate. The officer followed the policy and investigated the complaint. It is not at fault.
37. There is no timeframe for the Council to investigate a complaint against a licence holder set out in the enforcement policy. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the investigation timeframe depends on the complexity of the investigation and the availability of witnesses and receiving information.
38. The officer began her investigation and contacted Ms S within a week of receiving her complaint. I consider this is a reasonable timeframe to start the investigation.
39. Unfortunately, Ms S did not respond to the officer’s correspondence for over a month. This slowed the investigation down. This was not directly the officers’ fault, although they could have chased this up. The Council could have been more proactive in the early stages, but I do not consider this serious enough to be fault.
40. Once the officer received the information needed from Ms S, they organised an interview date with Mr X. The officer arranged this for a couple of weeks later, after they returned from annual leave. I do not consider this to be a significant delay, even if it was, this was due to officer availability.
41. Following the interview, and on the same day, the officer tried to contact Ms S about her complaint. The care home told the officer Ms S was on long-term sick and was not to be contacted privately. The officer tried to contact Ms S through the care home several times but was told she was still on sick leave. This delayed the investigation as the officer needed to speak to Ms S before they could continue. While there was a delay, it was due to circumstances beyond the Council's control. During this time, the officer tried to contact Ms S and move the investigation on but was unsuccessful. The Council is not at fault.
42. The officer contacted Mr X’s representative in October and told them of the delay. They further updated the representative in November and December, this was in response to an email from the representative. While the Council did keep Mr X and his representative informed, they could have been more proactive in contacting them, rather than reacting to correspondence. However, I do not consider this serious enough to be fault.
43. Ms S returned to work just before Christmas. At this point, the investigating officer was on leave. This further delayed the investigation. This was due to circumstances beyond the Council’s control. The Council is not at fault.
44. I would expect an investigation to take place within a reasonable timeframe. Ms S made the complaint in early July and the investigation was concluded in late January. This is roughly six months. I consider six months to be an excessive amount of time to complete an investigation. However, this was mainly due to the Council not being able to contact Ms S and discuss the complaint with her while she was on sick leave. It also covered two periods of the officer’s annual leave. These were circumstances outside the Council’s control, it is not at fault.
45. The Council recognised there was delay in finishing the investigation and apologised for this in its investigation response.

Timeliness of the complaint response

46. The Council acknowledged the complaint within five working days of receipt, as required by the Council’s own policy. The Council is not at fault.
47. The Council contacted Mr X and explained it would take longer than the usual ten days to investigate his complaint and said the response would be delayed. The Council’s policy allows for this in complex cases. The Council issued a stage one response within roughly a month of receiving the complaint. It apologised for the delay. While this is delay, the Council followed its policy and told Mr X. I consider one month to be a reasonable timeframe considering the complexities of the case. The Council is not at fault.
48. The stage two response was issued within the Council’s policy of 20 working days. It is not at fault.

Investigating Mr X’s complaint

49. In correspondence with me, Mr X said he felt he ‘was not treated with neutrality or felt… heard.’ He said the officer verbally attacked him during the interview, did not consider the report he presented or listen to his verbal representations.
50. As part of the investigation into Mr X’s complaint, both the manager and the head of department listened to the recordings of the interview. They also spoke to the second officer who was present in the interview. As a result, they concluded the officer conducted herself in a professional and appropriate manner and was not aggressive. I am satisfied the Council reviewed the evidence and investigated the matter before coming to this decision. It is not at fault.
51. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed the officer reviewed the written information Mr X submitted and the verbal information at the interview. It explained not all the representations were relevant to the investigation. The Council’s complaint response noted there was no evidence of bias against Mr X. It said as the officer took no further action against him, the result was in his favour. It concluded this does not match with treating someone unfairly. I am satisfied with the Council’s explanation.

Summary

52. The Council’s licensing investigation took longer than anticipated. This was mainly due to periods of sick and annual leave, both of which were outside the Council’s control. I do not consider the Council to be at fault. The Council did update Mr X via his representative, although it could have been more proactive.
53. Through its complaint process, the Council reviewed the actions of the investigating officer and was satisfied she acted with professionalism and without bias before she decided to take no further action. I am satisfied the Council acted properly and considered the matter before responding to Mr X’s complaint. The complaint response took longer than the standard timeframe for investigation, but the Council told Mr X it would be delayed because of the complexities of the case, something which it is entitled to do according to the complaints policy.
54. I am satisfied with the Councils actions. While there are some elements it could have handled better, I do not consider this serious enough to be fault causing injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I have completed my investigation. The Council is not at fault.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman