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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to add four points to his taxi driver’s licence for failing to notify it of a medical condition. He says the Council failed to consider his individual circumstances.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Under the Council’s policy, it can give penalty points for breaches of a taxi licence. The Council gave Mr X four points for failing to notify it of medical changes that could adversely affect his ability to drive.
7. Mr X says he stopped driving temporarily, the DVLA did not impose any medical restrictions and there was no risk to public safety. He says the Council’s decision was disproportionate. He also says the Council delayed processing his licence, which would have affected him if he had been driving. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision to issue the points.
8. The Council reviewed the decision. It said Mr X had confirmed he was unable to drive for two weeks but had failed to notify it of the change in his medical condition, as required by his licence conditions. It said it applied the policy fairly and consistently. It also said the licence was available to collect from the 14 November 2025, but Mr X did not collect it until 12 December 2025. Therefore, there was no loss of income. Following the review, the Council upheld its decision. Mr X then approached us.
9. 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.
10. I have considered the steps the Council made when making its decision and the information it took account of. I have also considered Mr X’s comment that he did not have any medical restrictions to drive, and he was not a public safety risk. However, under the Council’s policy, it can give four points if a taxi driver does not notify it of a change in their medical condition which may adversely affect their ability to drive. The Council was satisfied Mr X had a change in his medical condition which he did not report. It therefore reached its decision properly, and I cannot question it. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
11. In any event, there is insufficient evidence of personal injustice to justify further investigation. I appreciate the frustration the delay in issuing his licence may have caused Mr X. However, Mr X did not collect the licence when it was available, and he was unable to drive during this period. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence that the Council’s delay caused him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman