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, and an officer moving him on under the terms of the PSPO. There is not enough evidence of Council fault, nor sufficient significant injustice to Mr X from the matters complained of, to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a taxi driver. He complains:
1. the Council unlawfully placed signs restricting taxi drivers waiting in a part of its area;
2. an officer threatened him with a fine if he did not move from the area in 2025.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions have ruined his life, his family’s life and his business, as well as many others’. He says he felt intimidated and coerced by the officer who moved him on. Mr X says he lost a taxi fare as a result of being moved on and that he is losing about £250 per week. He says the restrictions are preventing him from doing business as a driver and causing emotional and family strain.

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. The reason for the PSPO was some taxi drivers committing anti-social behaviour there 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 referred him to the documents produced during the PSPO process. They explained the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (‘the 2014 Act’) grants council 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. We note Mr X believes the PSPO is unlawful but does not say why. 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. We note Mr X also refers to the Council’s 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 an Equalities and Impact Assessment as part of the PSPO application to fulfil its equalities duty. The Council was required to consider whether the action or decision 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 their personal circumstances, nor any other individual not belonging to a protected group. Having a particular job is not a protected characteristic under equality law.
11. 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.
12. Even if there had been Council fault here, we would not investigate. Mr X was moved on from the area by an officer because of the PSPO, stating that if he did not then he would get a fine. The Council confirms it did not issue a fine to Mr X. We recognise Mr X may have been upset at being moved on and he says he lost a fare. It was not fault for the officer to move him on, in line with the adopted PSPO terms. Nor does this incident cause sufficient significant injustice to Mr X to warrant us investigating. Mr X claims the PSPO restrictions are preventing him from doing business as a driver as well as many others’ businesses, ruining his and his family’s lives. If Mr X wishes to conduct his business without the possibility of a PSPO-related fine, he may use the alternative taxi waiting areas mentioned by the Council in the PSPO documents. This would assist him in continuing with his business, which is at the root of his concerns about the impacts on him and his family. Any impacts on others are not Mr X’s personal injustice. There is insufficient significant injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman