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

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council wrongly gave him nine points of his taxi driving license for allegedly using his mobile phone while driving. Mr Y says there is insufficient evidence to prove this as the video footage does not conclusively show he was using his phone. He also says his explanation was not properly considered when the Council made its decision.
2. Mr Y says he has lost his school run contract as a result of the points, which has financially affected him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Under the Council’s policy, it is able to give up to 12 points on a taxi driver’s taxi license for minor breaches of the license, such as driving while using a handheld device such as a mobile phone. In this case, Mr Y was given nine points on his taxi license for such a breach. The Council used video footage which it believes shows Mr Y using his mobile phone while driving. It showed this footage to Mr Y during an interview before issuing the points following a complaint. Mr Y disputes that he was or has ever used his mobile phone while driving without a hands-free. He appealed the Council’s decision to issue the points.
7. The Council reviewed the decision and has reflected some of Mr Y’s comments in his appeal in its decision letter. Following the review, the Council did not change its decision to issue the points. Mr Y then approached us.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
9. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding to issue the points. I have also considered Mr Y’s comment that its evidence does not conclusively show he was using his mobile phone. However, under the Council’s policy, it is only required to decide such issues on a balance of probabilities. As the Council was satisfied from the footage that there was sufficient evidence to make its decision on this basis, we would be unlikely to find fault that it had not required proof of a higher standard in order to be conclusive.
10. There is no fault in how it took the decision, and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong. As it made its decision properly, having considered Mr Y’s appeal comments, the video footage and its policy, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.
11. The Council’s letter also referred to its consideration of Mr Y’s appeal. Mr Y has been shown at interview the evidence on which the Council made its decision, and he at that time was able to make comments and discuss the matter. While Mr Y may have preferred a fuller response to his appeal, I am satisfied that he has enough information on which to understand the decision. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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