Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to investigate alleged licence condition breaches at a nearby pub. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council and have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council failed to properly investigate alleged licence breaches by a nearby pub.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. Mr D has been complaining about the pub to the Council for several years. My investigation is solely considering events from September 2022 to September 2023. In addition, Mr D refers to intimidation and harassment, I have advised him those are matters for the Police and will not form part of my investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information provided by Mr D and spoke to him. I asked the Council questions and examined its reply.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their responses.
6. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did. On the broader point, we cannot always respond to complaints in the level of detail people might want. We have limited resources and must investigate complaints in a proportionate manner, focusing on general themes and issues, rather than providing a response to every individual issue raised in a complaint. The amount of information provided by the Council was considerable due to the frequency of contact from Mr D. In this decision, I have not referred to every element of that information, but I have not ignored its significance.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. In September 2022 the Council’s Licensing Technical Officer responded to a query from Mr D about what areas around the pub were classed as outside drinking areas and therefore subject to licence conditions. The Council had considered legal advice and was able to confirm the car park area was covered. It would notify the licence holder. On 7 October the Council wrote to the licence holder about the outside drinking area and subsequently spoke to the licence holder that month.
8. Mr D continued to submit emails to the Council about incidents/ noise from the pub including in February and March 2023. In April the Council visited the site and considered Mr D’s concerns about what licence conditions could be enforced in relation to open doors during regulated entertainment at the pub. The Council decided to seek external legal advice from a barrister on this matter. In May the Council met the licence holder again to raise the noise issues flagged by Mr D. Officers reminded staff about good practice and licence conditions and noted the licence holder was being constructive in their approach. Towards the end of May the Council told Mr D it was waiting for the legal advice on the ‘open door’ issue.
9. In June Mr D reported more noise issues at the pub. On 15 June the Principal Licensing Officer told Mr D the Council would issue a formal warning letter to the pub. That letter was sent on 19 June and asked the licence holder to take steps to ensure they operated within the licence conditions. At the end of the month the Principal Licensing Officer advised Mr D the evidence he had submitted (including videos of people outside the pub) had limited evidential value and he might be putting himself at risk. It would be better to submit evidence using the standard Council diary sheets and submit them on a regular basis. On 30 June Officers visited the pub and witnessed a licence breach. The Council spoke to the licence holder a week later about the issue.
10. During July the Council received the legal advice about the ‘open doors’ licence condition. The legal advice said that there were restrictions on when a licence breach would occur with open doors and windows during regulated entertainment. On 12 July the Council sent Mr D details of the legal advice and explained how this placed restrictions on when a licence breach would occur. Mr D continued to send the Council emails about alleged incidents at the pub.
11. On 12 September the Principal Licensing Officer told Mr D that due to the frequency of his emails it was difficult to respond. They reiterated the preferred approach at the Council was for diary sheets to be submitted, this would reduce email volume and give officers a chance to assess and respond. Also, in September the Council replied to a complaint from Mr D. It explained about the outside drinking area and included a plan of the site. The Council had reminded the licence holder about the restrictions on outdoor drinking and had visited the site and issued a formal warning letter. The evidence Mr D had submitted was not of a sufficient standard and so the Council had visited the area to try and witness a licence breach and would continue to do so periodically. The Council also explained about the ‘open doors’ licence condition. It advised there were no licence conditions relating to another door at the pub being left open and so it could not take enforcement action. Any anti-social behaviour matters should be reported to the Police.

What should have happened

12. The Council’s Regulatory Services consider reports about alleged licence breaches including licences relating to pubs. Where a report is received the Council will assess the evidence. It may ask the complainant to fill out and return diary sheets to better capture evidence showing if there is a repeat problem at a premises. The Council will consider the details of the licence conditions for the premises when assessing if there has likely been a licence breach. It may carry out site visits to monitor activity and try to witness a breach. Officers can also speak to the licence holder to advise when complaints are received and discuss good practice. The Council may issue warning letters to the licence holder advising a complaint has been received and that enforcement action could be considered if there is evidence of a licence breach.
13. The Council is not bound to take enforcement action in every case even where a licence breach is identified. For “minor breaches” the Council will provide advice to the licence holder and allow times for compliance. In order to start legal proceedings against a licence holder the Council must be satisfied there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

Was there fault by the Council

14. Mr D says the Council failed to notify him about a change to the licence conditions relating to doors and windows being open. There is no fault in this matter. The Council explained very clearly to Mr D in 2023 the licence has not been changed. Instead, the Council sought external legal advice on this issue and that advice confirmed there were restrictions about when a breach would occur. The Council correctly clarified its understanding of the condition and explained it to Mr D.
15. Mr D would like the Council to take enforcement action against the licence holder for what he perceives as regular breaches of the licence. Having considered the evidence, I cannot see there is any fault by the Council. It has received a significant volume of contact from Mr D reporting events at the pub. It has considered those reports and given Mr D advice on how to best capture and share information with the Council. It has also correctly set out its role to Mr D and explained where it cannot assist. Officers have visited the pub and met with the licence holder to discuss good practice. During the period I have investigated the Council found one breach of the licence conditions. It responded correctly by issuing a formal letter to the licence holder. The September 2023 complaint response to Mr D accurately set out what actions the Council had taken and why it was not in a position to take formal action against the licence holder at that time.
16. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong. In making its decisions on this case the evidence shows me the Council acted in line with its procedures.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman