Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about taxi vehicle licensing because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the magistrates court about the issue, we could not add to the previous investigation about the issue and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has incorrectly denied a license for his vehicle due to an incorrect assessment of the vehicle’s condition. He also complained about the behaviour of staff towards his business, which he considers unprofessional, and complained the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint, including additional evidence he provided.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
3. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Where a council has refused a license because of concerns about an applicant’s vehicle, there is a right of appeal to the magistrate’s court. The concerns Mr Y has raised, for example relating to whether there was misting or leaking from part of his vehicle, or where the test used by the Council, as in its policy, goes further than the MOT requirements, these are issues which can be raised as part of an appeal to the court. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court.
7. We can only investigate where it would be unreasonable for Mr Y to be expected to appeal. There might be some cost to court action. However, that does not mean it is unreasonable to take court action. There is often financial assistance to those of a low income from HM Courts and Tribunal Service. Also, reasonable adjustments can be made for access to the service if necessary. It is therefore reasonable for Mr Y to be expected to use the right to go to court about this matter.
8. Mr Y has complained about the behaviour of the Council’s staff, who he says made unprofessional comments about his business. The Council, as part of its own complaint investigation, spoke to the individual staff who Mr Y says made the comments. The staff member denied any recollection of having made such comments. In such situations, where there is a difference of opinion or a conflict in the evidence provided on what was said, we would not be able to make a finding on whether comments were made or not. In this case, the Council has apologised for any upset caused and has reminded its staff about the importance of remaining courteous and professional.
9. This is the type of action we would likely recommend if we were to investigate and find fault causing an injustice to Mr Y. As we would struggle due to the conflicting evidence of the accounts given to decide fault and the remedy would likely not differ from that already provided, we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Consequently, we will not investigate.
10. As we are not investigating the substantive matter, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how the Council considered Mr Y’s complaint. Consequently, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the magistrates court about the issue, we could not add to the previous investigation about the issue and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman