Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate how the Council dealt with the complainant’s concerns about the actions of two cab drivers. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault causing the complainant significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained about how the Council responded to his concerns about the actions of two cab 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’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate how a council has dealt with a complaint about something if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and background information provided by the Council. Mr B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B complained to the Council that two cab drivers were talking in the street and obstructing traffic. He says the Council has not responded to his complaint. The Council said it dealt with Mr B’s concerns as a licensing management issue with the drivers concerned and has explained this many times to Mr B in phone calls.

Back to top

Final decision

7. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because I do not consider Mr B was caused significant injustice by the actions of the cab drivers or the Council’s response to his concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman