Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mrs P’s complaint about its failure to properly process her daughter’s performance licence application. Despite accepting her late application and telling her it would process it, the Council failed to do so. This meant her daughter could not perform in the final show. The agreed action remedies the avoidable injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs P complains about the Council’s failure to properly process her daughter’s performance licence application with the result she could not take part in a performance that was due to be filmed one night; this caused the family upset as well as wasted expenditure on costumes for the performance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered all the information Mrs P sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent her. I sent Mrs P and the Council a copy of my draft decision. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs P’s young daughter Q is a member of a dance production company (the company). The company was due to put on a performance at a local theatre from Wednesday to Saturday. Exactly 2 weeks before the first performance, Mrs P discovered from the company that Q needed a licence to perform. This type of licence is issued by the Council.
6. Mrs P had never applied for one before. After calling ahead, she visited the Council’s offices the same day where she was given forms to complete. The Council confirmed she visited its main office, not the building where licensing staff are based. The officer she spoke to there was not a licensing officer but took copies of Q’s passport and birth certificate. The officer also allowed Mrs P to talk to an officer in the licensing team who told her she needed to provide 2 passport sized photographs.
7. Mrs P emailed the photographs to this officer when she got home who emailed her the same day. This acknowledged receipt of the photographs and said, ‘I have now saved this and will process the application’.
8. Mrs P did not receive a licence. She wrongly assumed it had been processed and the Council had a record of the licence which it would send on to the company.
9. During the Friday evening, inspectors visited the theatre and told the dance company they had no record of the licence. Although Q became upset, she performed in the show. The inspectors said Q had to produce a hard copy of the licence if she wanted to perform in the final show on Saturday night.
10. As the Council’s offices were shut for the weekend, Mrs P could not obtain a hard copy. This meant Q could not perform in the final performance which the company recorded. Q was understandably upset and the relationship between the company and Mrs P became strained.
11. The Council accepted her application was missed by the administration team and was ‘not processed in the correct way’ for which it apologised. The usual process is to receive applications from production companies. As Mrs P brought the application in herself, which was late, the Council accepted it failed to process it alongside the other children’s applications. The Council recognised this as an error on its part.

Analysis

12. Up to leaving school, a child involved in television, filming, or theatre needs either a performance licence or an exemption from the licensing procedures. These are issued by the licensing authority which must be told of the details of any performance involving children.
13. An application for a licence must be made in writing by:

• the person responsible for the organisation of, or the engaging of the child in, the activity; or
• the person responsible for the production of the performance in which the child is to take part; and
• contain specified information;
• be signed by the applicant and a parent of the child; and
• include specified documentation. (Regulation 4, The Children (Performances and Activities) (England) Regulations 2014)

14. The Council can refuse to grant a licence if the application is not received at least 21 days before the day on which the first performance or activity takes place. (Regulation 4, The Children (Performances and Activities) (England) Regulations 2014)
15. The Council must send a copy of the licence to the parent who signed the application form. (Regulation 9, The Children (Performances and Activities) (England) Regulations 2014)
16. The documents needed in support of the application include:

• A copy of the birth certificate of the child;
• 2 identical photographs of the child taken within the last 6 months; and
• A copy of the contract or other documents about the child’s performance. (Schedule 2, part 1, paragraph 24, The Children (Performances and Activities) (England) regulations 2014)

17. The Council’s website explains the circumstances when an application needs making, what needs sending with it, and the need to apply 21 working days before the first day of the performance. It also says the, ‘person responsible for the performance is responsible for submitting the entertainment licence application’. It states if the applicant cannot give 21 working days’ notice, they need to call before sending the application to discuss whether it is possible for the Council to process it in time of the first day of the performance.
18. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. The company was responsible for sending the application to the Council within its deadline with all supporting evidence;
2. The Council received the application 14 days before the first performance and had the discretion to refuse it. There is no evidence showing the Council told Mrs P it was not possible to process the application in time;
3. The evidence shows the Council accepted the application form and when it received the photographs, confirmed it would now process the application;
4. The Council accepted it failed to process this application. I am satisfied this is fault. It raised Mrs P’s expectations that it would process it despite the 14 day time frame between receiving it and the date of the first performance; and
5. I consider the fault caused Mrs P and Q avoidable injustice. For Q this was clearly the distress and the lost opportunity arising from her missing the final show with her fellow performers and being in the DVD the company made of it that night. In addition, they had raised expectations from the Council’s email that it would process her application in time despite its late submission. I also took account of the stress and frustration they were both caused.

Agreed action

19. I considered our guidance on remedies and took account of the apology the Council gave Mrs P for the failure to process her application.
20. While I considered Mrs P’s argument of her paying for additional classes before the performances and for the costumes, I also took account of the fact Q performed in 3 out of the 4 shows.
21. The Council will, within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint, do the following:
1. Pay £125 to Mrs P for the avoidable injustice caused to them both;
2. Remind officers dealing with these applications of the need to give applicants realistic information about the likelihood of it processing late applications in time; and
3. Check to see why this application was not processed and take steps to ensure this failure is not repeated on future ones.

Back to top

Final decision

22. The Ombudsman found fault causing injustice on Mrs P’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman