Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not responding appropriately to Mr X’s reports about taxi drivers and its decision to apply the vexatious complaints policy. This is because there is not significant enough personal injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to respond appropriately to his reports about unsafe taxi drivers. He also complains the Council later applied its vexatious complaints policy to him unfairly. Mr X says this affects the safety of road users across York.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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 serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
6. Mr X says taxi drivers licensed by this Council and working in York are committing offences daily. He says this is causing safety issues for the public. We gave Mr X an opportunity to explain how these matters have affected him personally, but he did not provide any further information. While I recognise Mr X’s concerns about public safety, his complaint is about a matter affecting the public at large rather than a significant personal injustice to him. In the circumstances, this does not amount to a significant enough personal injustice to justify us devoting public money and resources to an investigation.
7. Mr X is also unhappy the Council has refused to deal with his continuing reports about the same drivers and vehicles and later applied its vexatious complaints policy to him. However:
• the Council’s decision not to pursue repeated reports about the same issues, drivers and vehicles was proportionate and does not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice; and
• conversely it would be wholly disproportionate for any licensing authority to respond to reports from members of the public about minor defects to a vehicle or infringements of road traffic law. They are a matter for the police in the first instance or the Department for Transport annual ‘MOT’ inspection procedure otherwise. They would usually only be relevant to a taxi and private hire licensing authority if a driver or registered keeper was convicted of an offence which could then render them unfit to hold a relevant licence. We would not therefore expect the Council to respond as Mr X would like.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not significant enough personal injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman