Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s taxi licensing application process. We do not consider that further investigation will lead to a different outcome. We cannot require the Council to pay for damage to the complainant’s car, this is a matter for the courts. And there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision on the degree of permitted window tinting on licenced vehicles.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council about the taxi/private hire vehicle licensing process. He says the Council:
• Failed to respond to all his concerns
• Discriminates against drivers who apply for their private hire/taxi license from the Council
• Used out-of-date road routes on its test; and
• Damaged his property.
2. He wants the Council to refund him for the cost of the application process and pay for the damage to his car.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. During my review of the information provided by Mr X and the Council I have noted:
• Test routes have been updated and Mr X was given a free retest. Therefore an investigation on this point would not lead to a different outcome.
• The Council has adopted a policy on tinted windows. This is a decision it is entitled to make. That other licensing authorities permit darker tinting on windows is not evidence of fault on the part of the Council.
• Officers at its test centres have been reminded of what is suitable communication with applicants. Wipes are available to remove chalk marks from car windows during the car testing process. Further investigation on this point would not lead to a different outcome.
• The Council has apologised for the delay in responding to Mr X’s concerns. We consider this is an acceptable remedy to this part of the complaint. Plus, we do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice on this point alone to justify an investigation.
• We cannot decide whether Council Officers were negligent and damaged his car. Only a court can do this. We cannot award damages. Therefore we usually expect a complainant to seek a remedy for damage to property through the Council’s insurers or the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint for the reasons set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman