Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a licensing matter X disagrees with. This is because X could have appealed this decision to the Magistrates Court. Only the court could make a new decision, and we could not say the Council’s decision was right or wrong. It was reasonable for X to have used their appeal right. Additionally, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council notified X of its decision to revoke their licence.

The complaint

1. X said the Council’s decision to revoke their taxi licence was wrong and it did not properly give them a chance to appeal the decision. X said this has cost them financially and affected their mental well-being.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. X was unhappy the Council decided to revoke their taxi licence and did not properly give them notice they could appeal this decision.
6. We will not investigate this complaint. X had an appeal right which they could have lodged at the Magistrates Court. And it was reasonable for them to use their appeal right if they disagreed with the Council’s decision, because only the court could make a new decision and we could not.
7. The Council explained how it served a notice on X, setting out its decision to revoke their licence, including the fact it served it by hand at a location it had as X’s registered address. It is unlikely I would find fault in the way the Council served X with notice of its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate X’s complaint because they could have appealed the Council’s decision to the court and it was reasonable to have expected them to have appealed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman