Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about taxi licensing. This is because the complaint is late, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council relocated their vehicle testing site outside of the city boundary in 2016, which Mr Y says is illegal.
2. Mr Y says this has increased his mileage and fuel consumption whenever he needs to have his vehicle tested. Mr Y says this also wastes his time and adds a financial burden.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

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

5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The law says people should normally complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of an issue. Complaints brought to the Ombudsman more than 12 months after someone becomes aware of something a council has done are considered late. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons.
8. Mr Y’s was aware of his reason to complain about the Council’s actions when the Council changed the location of its testing centre in 2016, more than 12 months ago. Consequently, his complaint is now late. We have discretion to disapply the rule outlined in paragraph five where we decide there are good reasons. Mr Y has not provided any good reasons why he did not bring her complaint to us within 12 months of knowing about the matter. It is reasonable to expect him to have complained sooner. We will therefore not exercise discretion to investigate this late complaint.
9. Mr Y has also said the Council has acted illegally in relocating the testing centre outside of its own city boundary. The Council has explained that it sought approval and received a Certificate of Exemption from having its testing centre within the city boundary from the body now known as the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) in 2016. As the Council sought approval, which it was granted by the appropriate body in 2016, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint. We will not investigate.
10. Mr Y has said that he now has an added financial burden from the move to a new testing site and that he has to spend time, fuel and effort driving to the testing centre when required for the benefit of his taxi license. The distance between the area the current test centre is and the centre of the Council’s area is approximately 6.5 miles.
11. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
12. We would not consider this distance to be a significant harm, loss or inconvenience to Mr Y. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the complaint is late, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman