Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to grant a clean air zone exemption. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify an investigation, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused his application for a clean air zone (CAZ) exemption for his private hire car.
2. Mr X says this caused distress.
3. Mr X wants the Council to approve his CAZ exemption application or change its policy to ensure its fairness.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. A CAZ is an area where an authority has made changes to improve the air quality. If a car does not meet certain standards, the motorist must pay to drive in a CAZ. The Government issued guidance which says how authorities should manage a CAZ.
8. When rejecting Mr X’s CAZ exemption application, the Council advised him of the criteria for private hire cars and explained that his car did not meet the criteria.
9. From the evidence I have seen, the Council has applied its policy correctly when deciding Mr X’s private hire car did not meet the criteria for a CAZ exemption.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr X disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify us investigating, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
12. Additionally, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. We cannot direct the Council to grant Mr X a CAZ exemption when his private hire car does not meet the criteria laid down in the Council’s policy.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify an investigation, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman