Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the behaviour of a taxi driver, nor how the Council investigated his report of the incident and its licensing sanction decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation and decision to warrant us investigating. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X stemming from the Council’s actions or its licensing decision to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X took a taxi journey with a colleague in summer 2024. He asked the driver for a receipt but received one he considered did not include all the information it should. Mr X complains:
1. the driver bullied and harassed him and was racist towards him during the taxi incident;
2. the Council has failed to properly punish the driver.
2. Mr X says in his complaint to us that the matter has affected severe disabilities that he has.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The issues Mr X raises with us, of bullying, harassment and racism, are allegations against the driver during the taxi incident. It does not appear he raised them during his contacts with the Council. These allegations include some matters which could be for the police. If Mr X wants to pursue these issues against the driver, he might wish to make a report to the police or seek independent legal advice.
7. Mr X’s complaint to the Council was about its decision against the driver after his report of the taxi incident. The administrative process leading to that decision is a matter we can consider. The Council is the authority which issued a licence to the driver. This gives it standing to consider reports about drivers operating with one of its licences and to hold them to the relevant licence terms and standards. Where a council receives a complaint about a driver operating with one of its licences, we would expect it to investigate those concerns and make a decision on what action, if any, it should take.
8. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making processes and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes followed to make decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
9. The Council considered the evidence it received from Mr X, including a recording he had of part of the incident, and evidence from the driver. The information Mr X has provided with his complaint to us does not show he raised his allegations of bullying, harassment and racism during his dealings with the Council. The Council gave Mr X opportunities during the matter to give further information and comments. Officers referred the matter to its Licensing Panel. They decided they had sufficient evidence and grounds to give the driver a formal warning. We cannot criticise the Council for reaching that decision, which was one they were entitled to make. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation and decision-making processes here to allow us to go behind that decision or to warrant an investigation.
10. We realise Mr X disagrees with the Council and considers the driver should have received a stronger sanction. But it is not fault for a council or its licensing committee to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. Even if there had been Council fault here affecting its licensing decision, we will not investigate. Mr X says in his complaint to us that his injustice is that the taxi incident affected severe disabilities he has. In his complaint to the Council Mr X says the incident caused him humiliation and embarrassment in front of his colleague and that he felt distressed and belittled. He also says he has not been reimbursed by his employer because of the content of the receipt. Mr X’s claims of injustice here are ones which would be caused by the driver’s actions, not the Council’s. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X stemming from the administrative actions of the Council, its investigation of his report about the driver and its licensing decision, to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation of and decision on his report about the taxi driver to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice to him stemming from the Council’s actions or licensing decision to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman