Summary: Mr X complained about the Council deleting his organisation from its list of health practitioners who do not require a special treatments licence. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council deleting his organisation from its list of exempted health practitioners. It gave evidence to an overall body of authorities - the London Special Treatments Group (LSTG) who delated his organisation from its exemption list for all London boroughs. He says as a result his members will no longer be able to practice in these areas legally.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X is the sole member of an organisation which represents practitioners carry out special treatments which relate to Chinese medicine. His organisation acted as a ‘body of health practitioners’ under the legislation to represent these businesses. Following an investigation into members of his group and the refusal of a licence application which he supported, the Council decided that Mr X’s organisation was unsuitable to be exempted from the licensing procedure. It told him that his members had been involved in immigration offences and sexual services offences. Some members were still under investigation.
5. The Council is a member of the LSTG, a voluntary group which decides exemption for special treatments and compiles a list of exempt organisations. The Council was required to pass its concerns about Mr X’s organisation and members to the next meeting of the LSTG. That group decided to delete Mr X’s organisation from its list of exemptions. This means that in future Mr X’s members will be required to apply for a special treatments licence if they wish to practice in a London Borough.
6. Mr X had no right of appeal against the decision, but he was entitled to write to the Council about his case which he did. The Council decided not to change its view about his organisation. Any individual members who apply for a licence and have it refused may appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions in this matter. The Council acted as a licensing authority in the public interest over its concern about the conduct of Mr X’s members.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman