Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council voiding his result for an exam he took for a private hire taxi licence application. Mr X had a right of appeal to a magistrates’ court, and it would have been reasonable to have expected him to have used it. We will not investigate his complaint about how the Council responded to his request for information because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council voided his result for a private hire taxi licence exam.
2. Mr X also complained about how the Council responded to his Freedom of Information (FOI) and Subject Access Requests (SAR).
3. Mr X said this meant he was not issued with a licence, he had to pay to sit the exam again and the matter caused distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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), section 34(B))
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X sat an exam as part of his private hire taxi licence application.
10. The Council voided the exam result because of an issue with his account. The Council therefore did not issue Mr X a licence, and he had to sit the exam again.
11. After the Council refused to issue him with a licence, Mr X had a right of appeal to a magistrates’ court. The court can consider the application again and decide whether the Council should issue a licence. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used this appeal right.
12. Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to his FOI and SAR would be better placed with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
13. The ICO was set up by parliament to consider data protection disputes and are therefore better placed to consider this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for him to have used his right of appeal to a magistrates’ court and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider part of it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman