The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing his licence application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complained the Council refused his application to work on home to school and adult services transport contracts.
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, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or 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.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Mr X has had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making my final decision.
My assessment
Mr X told us he applied for a taxi licence to work on the home to school and adult services transport contracts. He said he applied for a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. The Council then refused his application following a disclosure from 18 years ago. Mr X says the Council did not try and speak to him about this and he has lost his secure employment.
The Council’s licencing policy says, in making its decision the Council will consider the relevance of any offence, the seriousness of the offence and the length of time since the offence. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint. In its response to him it said when concerns are raised from a DBS check, the application is referred to the Children and Young People’s Services safeguarding officer. The safeguarding officer recommended it would not be appropriate for Mr X to work on school and adult social care transport contracts.
Mr X told us he appealed the Council’s decision twice. He said the Council declined the appeal without giving him the opportunity to speak to someone face to face. Mr X said he has worked with children for the past four years and does not understand why the licence was declined. Mr X has had two opportunities to state his case during his appeals. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. There was no requirement on the Council to meet Mr X face to face.
Our role is to look at the way the Council reached its decision and whether there was fault in the decision-making process. In this case it was for the Council’s officer to decide if more information was needed from Mr X and to judge whether his application should be recommended for approval. In this case the Council has applied its licencing policy and there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it reached its decision. We have no powers to overrule the Council’s decision.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman