Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to disclose the name and address of two taxi drivers. This is because the Information Commissioner has made a decision and there is no worthwhile outcome the Ombudsman could achieve.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council will not give him the details for two taxi drivers who refused to accept Mr X as a passenger. Mr X uses a wheelchair. Mr X says the Council’s decision is preventing him from taking legal action under the Equalities Act. Mr X says the Council is obstructing his right to sue the drivers.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. 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

5. I read the complaint and got some information from the Council. This includes a copy of the decision made by the Information Commissioner (ICO) and information that Mr X started legal action against the drivers. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mr X was refused passage by two taxi drivers who said their taxis could not accommodate his wheelchair.
7. Mr X asked the Council for the name and addresses of the drivers so he could take legal action for discrimination. Mr X obtained the name of one driver but the Council, referring to data protection, declined to give the addresses to Mr X.
8. Mr X complained to the ICO. The ICO decision, in March 2020, relates to one of the drivers. The decision upholds the Council’s decision not to release the information and says disclosure, by the Council, would be unlawful. The ICO decision states that Mr X had already started legal action against the drivers and his solicitors had found a way of doing this without having an address. The ICO decision gave Mr X 28 days to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) if he disagreed with the decision. Mr X says he did not complain to the ICO but a representative made an enquiry.
9. Mr X says there is no on-going legal action because he lost the funding.
10. The Council had not taken any action against the drivers because it was waiting for the court action to be concluded. Now that court action has stopped it will consider what action to take.

Assessment

11. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
12. The ICO has upheld the Council’s decision not to disclose personal information about one of the drivers. The ICO is the appropriate body to consider complaints about the release of personal information. I have no power to comment on the ICO decision or challenge it. If Mr X disagreed with the ICO decision he could have appealed to the tribunal. I do not know why the ICO decision only relates to one driver but the same principle would apply to both. Mr X says he did not complain to the ICO. But, the decision clearly relates to this case.
13. Mr X disagrees with the ICO decision and says the Ombudsman has a duty to consider if the Council had a duty to disclose the details under equalities legislation. But this is the exact point the ICO considered and, as I have said, the way to challenge that was through the tribunal.
14. Mr X says he needs the Council to disclose the information so he can take legal action. But, he started legal action so there is nothing that could be achieved by starting an investigation. The legal action has stopped due to a funding issue, not because Mr X does not have enough information to initiate action.
15. The Council will now consider taking action against the drivers. Mr X needs to allow time for this to happen. He can make a new complaint to the Council if he is unhappy with the action it takes, once that process has finished.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will not start an investigation because the complaint has been considered by the ICO. In addition, the Council will now consider the case which means there is no meaningful outcome I could achieve at the moment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman