The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s officers cancelled a sub-committee decision to increase taxi licensing fees. The Council’s decision not to increase fees this year does not cause Mr X an injustice.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council’s officers wrongly overturned its environment and licensing committee decision to increase taxi licensing related fees from 1 April 2022. Mr X says it is contrary to the Council’s constitution for officers using delegated powers to change a decision of a committee. Mr X says the Council’s decision was irrational and it is not fair on licence holders who must keep to conditions. Mr X also says there is ‘potential unlawful charging’ for Council licenses for 3 years. Mr X says it is in the public interest for the matter to be investigated.
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: 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))
How I considered this complaint
I have considered Mr X’s information and comments including the complaint correspondence with the Council. I have considered Mr X’s complaints to the Ombudsman, in 2022, relating to taxi licensing (21 019 145 and 22 000 222).
My assessment
I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons: The Ombudsman investigates fault causing injustice. There is no injustice to Mr X. The Council’s decision cancelled this year’s increase in the taxi licence. I understand Mr X has a taxi licence. He is not caused injustice by a decision not to increase the cost of his licence. If he no longer holds a licence, there is no injustice.
There is insufficient public interest to investigate. The Council has explained that officers intervened because an environment and licensing sub-committee was not due until 19 April by which time the increase would have been implemented. I understand the decision was influenced by Mr X’s information regarding licensing. The Council says it treated the information as a change of circumstance. It says it acted in the interests of both the Council and taxi drivers.
Mr X says it would be irrational for the Ombudsman not to investigate but I do not agree. Mr X says the Council’s decision was irrational. Irrationality in the sense of unlawfulness is a matter for a court. Mr X can make his concerns about the constitution and officer practice known to his local councillor or to the head of the sub-committee.
Final decision
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s officers cancelled a sub-committee decision to increase taxi licensing fees. The Council’s decision not to increase fees this year does not cause Mr X an injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman