Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to grant licences to Ms Y and Ms Z for them to run animal kennel premises. Mrs X is employed by a kennel franchising firm. There is no significant personal injustice to Mrs X caused by the Council’s decisions on Ms Y and Ms Z’s licences. The Ombudsman would not investigate any complaint from Ms Y and Ms Z, because of their rights of appeal against the Council’s decisions, which it would be reasonable for them to use.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is employed by a firm which issues franchises to animal boarding kennel businesses. Ms Y and Ms Z are potential franchisees. They applied to the Council for the appropriate licence.
2. Mrs X complains the Council has incorrectly refused licences to Ms Y and Ms Z, misapplying the legislation and guidance. Mrs X wants the Council to grant licences to Ms Y and Ms Z.

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 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 our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs X;
• viewed the relevant online law and guidance, and the licence application and appeal process information;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mrs X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

7. There is no significant personal injustice to Mrs X from the Council’s decision to refuse licences to Ms Y and Ms Z. I recognise these decisions may have caused Mrs X some inconvenience in her job role. But I do not consider that is sufficient injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Mrs X is not acting as Ms Y and Ms Z’s representatives in this complaint to the Ombudsman.
8. The people most affected by the Council’s licence decisions are Ms Y and Ms Z. But if the Ombudsman received complaints from them about those decisions, or from someone representing them, he would not investigate. This is because Ms Y and Ms Z had formal rights of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against the Council’s licence decisions.
9. The First Tier Tribunal on welfare of animals matters considers appeals against decisions by councils to refuse new licences. The Tribunal is independent and can overturn, alter or confirm a council’s licence decision. People who want to appeal a council decision can do so within 28 days or, if they miss that date, can ask for more time.
10. I consider it would have been reasonable for Ms Y and Ms Z to use their Tribunal appeal rights. It is the appropriate formal route, provided by national government to challenge the Council’s decisions, and through which Ms Y and Ms Z may achieve the outcomes Mrs X says they seek.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• the matter does not cause Mrs X a significant personal injustice;
• even if the Ombudsman received complaints from Ms Y and Ms Z about the Council’s decision to refuse them licences, there are formal appeal rights to the Tribunal against those decisions which it was reasonable for them to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman