• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s appointment of a Chair to its Licensing Committee. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault causing Miss X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains about the way the Council appointed the Chair of its Licensing Committee. She says the issue brings into doubt decisions made by the Committee and casts doubt over whether the Council has followed proper procedures in other cases.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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 reviewed Miss X’s complaint and the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

4. In 2019 the Council appointed a new Chair of its Licensing Committee. Miss X says the Council did not follow the proper process for this. She says a Councillor announced without authority that he would preside over the meeting and, because there was a tie in the vote, he cast the deciding vote to appoint himself as Chair. Miss X believes the Councillor should not have had the casting vote and that the candidates should have drawn straws.
5. The Council says the Councillor offered to preside over the meeting and there was no question raised by any of the Councillors and no disagreement with his suggestion. It has told Miss X there is no basis for the drawing of straws to decide such matters and refers to the Local Government Act 1972 which explicitly allows for the person presiding at the meeting to have a second or casting vote, in the event of a tie.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Our role is to consider complaints against council as a whole; we have no jurisdiction to investigate any complaint against an individual councillor. Miss X’s suggestion in this case is that the Council did not handle the matter properly but I have seen nothing to suggest this is the case.
7. It is not fault for a member of the committee to preside over a meeting in the event there is no Chair and under the Local Government Act 1972 that person will have a casting vote in the event of a tie. Had any member of the committee disagreed with the Councillor’s suggestion to preside over the meeting they may have objected at the time. This was a matter for the committee and it is unlikely we would find fault in the way it was handled.
8. In addition to this, the matter has not caused Miss X significant injustice. Miss X is concerned about the legality of the Committee’s past and future decisions but this does not affect her personally. Many Committee decisions carry a right of appeal so if those directly affected believe a decision is flawed for this reason they may argue this as part of their appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Miss X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page