The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with the complainants’ urgent application for changes to its hackney carriage vehicle licensing conditions. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We do not consider the complainant has suffered enough personal injustice to warrant our involvement.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mr B, complains an unelected officer without sanctioned responsibility blocked his application from being referred to the Chair of the Environment and Licensing Committee (ELC) for consideration.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure,’ which we call ‘fault.’ We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice.’ We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Local Government Act 1972 says: “An item of business may not be considered at a meeting of a principal council unless … by reason of special circumstances, which shall be specified in the minutes, the chairman of the meeting is of the opinion that the item considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.”
The Council confirmed the Monitoring Officer reviews all requests for any urgent items. They decide whether special circumstances exist under the Local Government Act 1972, which allow the Chair of the ELC to consider that matter as urgent. It says this is to protect the Chair from acting unlawfully.
Mr B says the Council’s procedure led to him being denied a fair hearing because his urgent business was not considered by the Chair of the Committee or the Committee itself.
However, in this case, the Council had already heard his application as an urgent item at a previous meeting. It decided to consult with the taxi trade on Mr B’s proposed change to licensing conditions. Therefore, I do not consider there is sufficient injustice to warrant investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because I do not consider he has suffered sufficient personal injustice to justify our involvement in this case.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman