Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a Clean Air Zone exemption for the complainant’s private hire taxi. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council will not issue an exemption for his private hire taxi for the Clean Air Zone (CAZ). Mr X is struggling because he cannot work in the CAZ.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the application, decision, and information about the CAZ on the Council’s website. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X drives a private hire taxi (PHV) and is licensed to carry four passengers. The car, however, can accommodate seven people and is insured for seven people. The car is registered as a Euro six diesel vehicle.
5. Mr X applied for an exemption from the CAZ charge because he sometimes works inside the CAZ. He confirmed the car is a PHV Euro six diesel.
6. The Council decided not to award an exemption because the vehicle is not petrol or LPG and is licensed for four passengers. The Council explained Mr X would qualify for an exemption if the vehicle was licensed for at least five passengers.
7. Mr X disagrees with the decision because the car is insured to carry seven people for domestic use. Private cars are exempt from charges under the CAZ.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X applied for an exemption for a PHV which is licensed for four passengers. The CAZ rules say a PHV Euro six diesel vehicle only qualifies for an exemption if licensed to carry at least five passengers. Mr X’s car is insured for seven people but is licensed for four passengers and Mr X applied for an exemption as a PHV. The Council’s decision reflects the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
9. We are not an appeal body and it is not my role to re-make the decision. I can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made the decision and I see no suggestion of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman