Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council delayed and imposed unreasonable conditions on a child performance licence. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, says the Council avoidably delayed in issuing a child performance licence and imposed unnecessary conditions. She says this led to their part being reduced, time wasted learning unneeded lines and will affect their future career.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the Council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Principles of Good Administrative Practice during COVID -19”.
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word 'fault' to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Ms X provided with her complaint which included the Council’s responses. Ms X had the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X says her child, B, obtained a place as a child actor in a television drama, classified for COVID-19 guidance purposes as ‘high end’. The producers applied to the Council for a child performance licence as required by law. Ms X says the Council took too long to provide the licence and imposed unnecessary COVID-19 restrictions. Ms X says this meant B’s part was hastily rewritten. She says B had wasted time learning lines they did not need. She says it reduced B’s part and she believes this will detrimentally affect B’s future acting career.
6. We should not investigate this complaint because:
• There is lack of certainty that B’s part has been re written just because of the Council’s actions. It may have been re written any way.
• Wasting time learning lines is not a significant enough injustice to justify an investigation.
• The potential effect on B’s future career is speculative and one which we could not realistically remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman