Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s process and decision to introduce a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) restricting an area’s use by taxi drivers, or how it dealt with his complaint. There is not enough evidence of Council fault, nor sufficient significant injustice to Mr X from the matters complained of, to warrant an investigation. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a taxi driver. He complains the Council has:
1. unlawfully placed restrictions on drivers waiting in a part of its area;
2. not given taxi drivers an exemption;
3. installed confusing and inconsistent signage about the restrictions in the area;
4. not applied the restrictions consistently;
5. unfairly not taken account of his personal circumstances when applying the restrictions;
6. failed to resolve his complaint.
2. Mr X says the restrictions have had a disproportionate impact on him due to his family and personal circumstances. He says the matter has caused him significant financial strain as there is a threat of repeated fines which risk reducing his household income and pushing his family into hardship. Mr X says the matter has caused him emotional distress and anxiety. He says the Council’s poor communication and failure to resolve his complaint have left him feeling powerless, unfairly targeted, and stressed, affecting his health and ability to provide for his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• 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

5. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online PSPO documents, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s or committee decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we consider the processes they have followed to make their assessments and decisions. We cannot replace a decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. The Council proposed a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) for part of its area. One of the reasons for the PSPO was some taxi drivers committing anti‑social behaviour in the area while waiting for their next fare. The Council ran a consultation exercise, inviting comments from residents and all interested parties. Officers presented the evidence to the relevant committee which agreed to the PSPO.
8. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council explained the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (‘the 2014 Act’) grants its officers the powers to issue a PSPO. They must be satisfied activities in an area have a detrimental effect of residents and are likely to continue, are unreasonable and justify the PSPO. Mr X does not say why he believes the PSPO is unlawful. Nor does he say what is confusing and inconsistent about the PSPO signage, or how the restrictions have not been applied consistently. The Council considers its signs and the application of the PSPO are in line with the legislation and the terms of the order.
9. Officers had the appropriate powers to make the PSPO application. They followed the required consultation and decision-making processes to gather evidence and inform the committee’s decision. Mr X may have made his representations on the matter during that process if he was concerned about its impact on him. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council making the PSPO, using the powers it has been granted by the 2014 Act, to warrant us investigating.
10. Mr X considers the Council should have given him an exemption from the PSPO restrictions. But one of the aims of the PSPO was triggered by the anti-social behaviour of some taxi drivers. The Council was entitled to include them in the PSPO restrictions, balancing the limitation against a small group of people versus the interests of many residents affected by the anti-social behaviour.
11. We note Mr X also refers to the Council not following its Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) when making the PSPO. He says the Council should have taken into account his personal and family circumstances. The Council produced and published its PSED assessment as part of the PSPO application. The PSED is required to consider whether an action or decision by a body such as a local authority would discriminate against any group of people sharing a characteristic protected by equality law. It is not required to consider the impacts on each member of any such group due to personal circumstances, nor any other individual not belonging to a protected group. Having a particular job is not a protected characteristic under equality law.
12. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in this part of the complaint to justify us investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s PSPO. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
13. Even if there had been Council fault here, we would not investigate. In setting out his injustice, Mr X says there is a threat of repeated fines if he breaches the PSPO. He does not say he has received any fines which could cause the financial strain he claims. If Mr X is caused distress and anxiety as he states by the possibility of a fine, he may wish to use the alternative taxi waiting areas as mentioned by the Council in the PSPO documents. There is insufficient significant injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.
14. Mr X complains about the Council’s complaint process, which he says has made him feel powerless, unfairly targeted, and stressed. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant injustice to him from the matters complained of to justify an investigation; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman