Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

Rushcliffe Borough Council

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 23-016-514 Sector Environment And Regulation Category Licensing Decided 01 May 2024

View Rushcliffe Borough Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s taxi licensing process. The injustice caused to Mr X was the Council’s refusal to grant him a taxi licence and Mr X had the right to remedy this by way of an appeal in court.

The complaint

Mr X complained the Council was inconsistent and there were misunderstandings in the assessment process that led to the refusal of his application for a taxi licence. Mr X wants the Council to review its processes to align them with modern practices.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.

The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) 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 the complainant.

I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

The injustice to Mr X is the Council’s decision to refuse to grant him a licence. The law provides a mechanism whereby an applicant can seek a remedy for this by appealing the decision to the Magistrates’ Court. This is the appropriate way for Mr X to have challenged the Council’s decision.

Mr X has not provided evidence that would suggest a systemic problem in the way the Council handles such applications and therefore this is not a complaint we would investigate in the public interest.

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had the right to seek a remedy for his own personal injustice by way of court action, which he could reasonably have done. It would not be in the public interest to investigate the Council’s processes based on the evidence Mr X has provided with his complaint.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving Rushcliffe Borough Council

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-015-586 Other
25-018-548 Other
25-013-320 Other
25-017-021 Other
25-021-699 Other
View all decisions for this organisation