The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly communicate with him about an issue relating to his taxi meter, treated him differently by giving him only three weeks’ notice to book his taxi in for a test and has not appointed a new enforcement officer. This is because the issues have not caused Mr X significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council treated him differently as he has made complaints about it previously. He says he did not receive an email about changes to his taxi meter and that a letter arrived a week later than it should have. He also believes the Council should refund taxi drivers because it has not had a full-time enforcement officer in post for more than a year and a half.
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 do not start an investigation if we decide 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 X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says that because he did not receive the Council’s email about changes to his meter he missed an opportunity to go to a local depot to have it updated. This meant he had to go to another depot which is further away.
Mr X says he spent three hours travelling to sort out the issue with his meter and lost the opportunity to work for part of the day. He wants the Council to compensate him for this by paying him for three hours at minimum wage and reimbursing him for the cost of his fuel.
We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
The injustice Mr X claims from not receiving the Council’s email, and that which relates to his more general complaint about being treated differently to other drivers- in particular that it gave him only three weeks’ notice to book his taxi in for a test rather than four- is not significant enough to warrant investigation. The lack of a full-time enforcement officer has also not caused Mr X significant injustice. We will not therefore investigate these issues further.
Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman