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

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has not allowed him to transfer his license between two vehicles and has refused to refund him for the unused time on the original vehicle license.
2. Mr X says this has caused him a financial loss, dissatisfaction and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s website displays information for existing drivers and license holders. Within this information it explains that licenses cannot be transferred between vehicles and that if a driver should decide to sell or scrape their licensed vehicle, no refund can be made of any remaining period on the license.
7. Consequently, when Mr X asked to transfer his license between vehicles, the Council refused. When Mr X asked for a refund of the remaining time left on the license, the Council also refused.
8. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
9. In this case, the Council considered Mr X’s requests, but refused both the transfer and the refund, in accordance with its policy as published on its website. It confirmed this decision and explained it rationale that this was to ensure regulatory and safety standard were kept and to ensure consistency across licenses, in its complaint responses.
10. While Mr X may disagree with the Council’s policy, the decision has been made properly, with an explanation of both the basis of the decision in policy and its rationale. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify our investigation into the complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman