Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about matters related to the Authority’s decision to suspend his taxi driver licence. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Authority’s contractor fitted an unapproved engine in his London cab, leading to the Authority revoking his licence due to safety concerns.
2. He says the Authority failed to identify the unapproved engine during an earlier inspection. This meant he could not claim against the contractor when it was still in business.
3. Mr X wants the Authority to compensate him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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, 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Authority.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X took up the Authority’s “Clean Air” scheme and had a new engine fitted in 2021 through its third-party contractor. In February 2024, the Authority identified that an unapproved engine had been fitted to Mr X’s London cab, making the vehicle unsafe. So, it suspended Mr X’s licence.
9. The Authority is responsible for the actions of its contractors, provided they are acting under their agreed remit. In this case the Authority explains prior approval is needed before any modifications are made to a taxi to meet its Conditions of Fitness. And that the third-party contractor did not have the Authority’s approval to install the engine conversion to Mr X’s taxi.
10. I cannot hold the Authority responsible for the actions of its contractor, when the contractor is acting outside of its agreed remit with the Authority. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy but there is not enough evidence of fault by the Authority. Therefore, I will not investigate.
11. Mr X says the Authority did not identify the error at an earlier inspection meaning he is now unable to claim any compensation from the third-party. I will not investigate this complaint. Even if the Authority had acted sooner, I cannot say that Mr X would have been successful in his claim against the third party. Therefore, I cannot say any delay by the Authority caused Mr X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman