Summary: Mr X complains the Council treated him unfairly and provided poor advice before terminating his street trading licence. There is no fault in the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council revoked his street trading licence. He says leading up to this, the Council provided poor advice and treated him unfairly.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the complaint about the Council’s actions before terminating Mr X’s street trading licence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a contractual issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/3 (4a), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’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

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and supporting information.
7. I have also considered the Council’s response to Mr X and to my enquiries.
8. I have written to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Street Trading Licence Legislation

9. The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 regulates Street trading. A Council may resolve that Schedule 4 (Street Trading) of this Act shall apply to its area.
10. The Council has a Street Trading Policy document. This sets out the suitability of trading unit which confirms the unit should comply with various legal requirements. It includes a set of standard conditions which the Council attaches to every consent. It also states that it may attach additional conditions to some consents with details specific to that licence. Clause 7 of Mr X’s licence states:

‘“Stall” includes any stand vehicle trailer roundabout or table used for the sale of goods or services and must meet the quality standards required by the Council and as may be varied by the Council from time to time’.

What happened

11. I have seen a detailed chronology of events dating from December 2014 until January 2019. The events leading up to Mr X’s licence termination provide a useful context for my investigation into recent events.
12. Over the past 5 years, the evidence shows Mr X has been in arrears for not paying his street licence fees. In addition, he regularly breached his licence agreement by leaving his unit overnight.
13. When Mr X’s unit was written off in an accident, he used a gazebo. The Council wrote to Mr X about this in December 2017. It explained he had changed his unit from a mobile trailer to a pop up gazebo without any consultation or permission from the Council. It referred to Clause 7 of his licence agreement. It said the Council had reviewed his retrospective request to change his unit. The Council determined the gazebo did not meet required standards.
14. It gave Mr X 14 days’ notice in which to provide the Council with a proposal for an acceptable alternative trading unit. It said, if Mr X could not to provide a proposal for a unit in this time, the Council would terminate his licence.
15. Mr X explained his financial situation to the Council. The Council allowed him to use the gazebo over the busy Christmas period so he would not miss out on significant income. In addition, it extended the time period Mr X had to notify the Council with proposals for a new unit.
16. In March 2018, Mr X confirmed he had bought a new unit. This cost him £6,000.
17. Over the coming months, the Council repeatedly set up payment plans to help Mr X to pay his fees. Mr X failed to keep up the payments and remained in arrears.
18. The Council terminated Mr X’s licence in July 2018. It said it made its decision due to Mr X not having complied with the payment plan arrangements.
19. Mr X’s complained to the Council it had not treated him fairly. He said other traders used similar gazebos and the Council did not tell them to purchase a new unit. Mr X argued that, if the Council had allowed him to continue trading from a gazebo, he could have used the money he spent on the new unit, to pay off his debts.
20. Mr X said the Council did not show compassion to his situation. He said all the stress and worry is making him ill.

Analysis

21. The evidence shows the Council issued Mr X with a warning about the use of a gazebo. It said he needed to speak to the Council about proposals for a new unit. It did not specify that he needed to go out and spend £6,000 on a new unit. There is no fault with the Council’s advice on this issue.
22. Mr X argued that, if the Council had allowed him to continue trading from a gazebo, he could have used the money he spent on the new unit, to pay off his debts.
23. Mr X was in debt long before his original unit was written off. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, even if the Council allowed him to continue trading from the gazebo, there is no guarantee that he would have used the money he spent on the new unit to settle his debts. There is no fault with the Council’s actions.
24. Mr X complained the Council allowed other traders to use gazebos similar to his. I cannot comment on the Council’s treatment of other traders. The Council said it would not have accepted any of the other traders’ requests to change their units to a gazebo should they have applied to do so. It said there is no precedent to refer to as the Council has not had such a similar request.
25. The Council has treated Mr X fairly and it has shown compassion to his situation. The Council has given Mr X numerous chances to resolve his licence breaches. It has;
• allowed him to trade for long periods whilst he remained in debt for not paying his fees;
• given him multiple warnings about leaving his unit on the street overnight;
• in some cases, made exceptions to allow him to leave his unit when he did not have a tow bar;
• given him warnings about the use of a gazebo;
• allowed him to use his gazebo over Christmas to ensure he didn’t miss out on income;
• agreed multiple payment plans to help Mr X to settle his debts; and
• granted extensions of time before terminating his licence to give him chance to settle his debts.
26. The Council is not at fault in terms of its actions leading to Mr X’s licence revocation.

Back to top

Final decision

27. There is no fault with the Council’s actions leading up to the revocation of Mr X’s licence.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

28. I have not investigated the termination of Mr X’s street trading licence. This is because a dispute relating to the termination of a licence is a contractual matter which is not within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman