Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a taxi driver because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained a taxi driver in the Council’s area overcharged him and failed to refund him for over six weeks. Mr Y complained the Council response to his complaint about the driver was biased.
2. Mr Y says this caused him distress and financial difficulty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y booked a taxi in September 2022. He was given an estimated cost of his travel of £34, but was charged £45 by the driver. He complained to both the Council and the taxi company. The Council investigated, and asked the taxi driver to refund Mr Y £15 of the charges. Mr Y felt the Council’s response was biased, after it declined to take further enforcement action against the driver. The money was later returned in October after the Council made further enquiries. Mr Y then complained to us in December.

Analysis

7. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
8. While Mr Y may have been upset about the incident, the money was a modest amount and has now been returned to him. Any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.
9. Further as we are not investigating the substantive matter, relating to any overcharging by the taxi driver, it is not a good use of public money to justify investigating how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman