Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about taxi licensing because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to approach the courts about the matter, who are better placed than us to consider the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Authority delayed in processing his application for the renewal of his private hire license and failed to respond to his complaint.
2. Mr Y says this led to his license expiring, causing him 12 days loss of income as he was unable to work, costing him an estimated loss of £1,500 in earnings and causing distress and inconvenience, which impacted his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y’s license has been renewed albeit that his license was not renewed until 12 days after the previous license had expired and Mr Y was unable to work. Mr Y is now seeking the recovery of the loss of income he says he experienced, of approximately £1,500 as the substantive remedy in this case.
8. The legislation from which the Ombudsman takes their power also places some restrictions on what we may investigate. This includes claims for damages, in this case for loss of earnings, and whether the Authority would be liable for this. These are legal claims which may only be determined by insurers or the courts.
9. We are not able to decide liability or award damages. Consequently, any claim for damages, such as a loss of earnings, which Mr Y considers the Authority to be responsible for, are matters more appropriately dealt with by the courts. Therefore, we will not investigate.
10. 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 and Mr Y may be able to claim back any costs as part of the claim he makes to the court if he is successful in the substantive matter. Also, reasonable adjustments can be made for access to the service, if necessary, by the courts. It is therefore reasonable for Mr Y to be expected to use his right to go to court about this matter. Consequently, we will not investigate.
11. Mr Y has also complained about the lack of response he received to his complaint by the Authority. As we are not investigating the substantive matter in this complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Authority dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to approach the courts about the matter, who are better placed than us to consider the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman