The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a licensed taxi-driver. That is because it does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code.
The complaint
Mr X is a taxi-driver. He complained about how the Council investigated his complaint into another taxi driver (Mr Y) after they had a verbal altercation. He said the Council: delayed in completing its investigation; sent him a letter that included information about historical, non-related matters; and failed to tell him what action if any, it had taken against Mr Y.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X and Mr Y are both taxi drivers licensed by the Council. Mr Y is also an elected member of the County Council.
Mr X had a verbal altercation with Mr Y in November 2021. Mr X made a complaint to the Council about Mr Y’s behaviour, and it agreed to investigate.
The Council concluded that investigation in March 2022. It wrote to Mr X and said that the behaviour of both parties had fallen below expected standards. It accepted that Mr X had attempted to defuse the situation therefore it would not issue points or a formal warning against him. It set out his right to appeal that decision. The Council did not tell Mr X what action it had taken against Mr Y. Mr X subsequently complained.
The Council took four months to complete its initial investigation into Mr Y’s behaviour. In its complaint response to Mr X it apologised for that delay. I am satisfied the Council’s apology remedies any injustice caused to Mr X therefore we will not investigate this complaint further.
Mr X is unhappy about the content of the Council’s decision letter to him. We will not consider this complaint further. My view is the content of the letter has not caused Mr X a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.
Mr X wants the Council to disclose what action it has taken against Mr Y. The Council has explained that it cannot disclose personal information about Mr Y. It has directed Mr X to the County Council if he wants to complain about Mr Y’s conduct as an elected member. Not only is there insufficient evidence of fault in the Councils actions to justify our investigating we cannot direct the Council to tell Mr X what action it took against Mr Y. Therefore, we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.
Mr X also questioned the Council’s complaint response as the Council Officer who responded to his stage one complaint was involved in the investigation about the altercation. We will not investigate this complaint further. It is not a good use of public resource to investigate complaints about complaint procedures where we are not investigating the substantive matters. There is also insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as it does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman