The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s refusal to provide information about disciplinary action taken against a licensed taxi driver. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to ask the Information Commissioner’s Officer to consider this matter. Also, we do not consider it a good use of public money to consider complaints about the Authority’s complaints procedure alone.
The complaint
Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) refuses to tell him what action it has taken against a licensed taxi driver who assaulted him.
He also complains TfL failed to follow its complaints process, which he says is cumbersome and not fit for purpose.
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 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X including his correspondence with TfL.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
TfL confirmed it investigated Mr X’s complaint. It says it has taken action against the taxi driver which would be: a note on the driver’s file a warning; or suspending/revoking the license.
Mr X wants to know what action was taken against the driver. TfL has advised it cannot provide this information as it is personal data and to release it would breach the General Data Protection Regulations.
TfL has repeatedly confirmed it cannot release the information Mr X is seeking. The ICO is the body set up by the Government to consider complaints about data protection. I have seen no good reason why we should exercise discretion and investigate this matter.
Mr X also complains about the Authority’s complaints procedure. TfL apologised for a delay in acknowledging and responding to his complaint. While the Ombudsman considers a Council should follow its complaints procedure, I do not consider that Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice on this point alone which warrants our involvement.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to ask the ICO to consider his concerns about TfL’s refusal to provide information because of data protection restrictions.
Also, we do not consider it is a good use of public fund or that Mr X suffered sufficient personal injustice because of failures in the complaints process to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman