Summary: Mr X complains the Council refused to accept his license application by email and handled his complaint poorly, causing upset and inconvenience. We find the Council at fault as it does not ensure people can complete electronic license applications and it delayed addressing Mr X’s complaint. We recommend the Council provides Mr X with an apology, payment and acts to prevent recurrence.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused to accept his electronic license application contrary to the law and he is unhappy with its complaints handling. He says he suffered inconvenience delivering documents by hand and upset due to the Council’s disregard for the law.

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’. 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)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. I spoke to Mr X and I reviewed documents provided by Mr X and the council.
6. I gave Mr X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law; access to services

7. Section 38 of the Provision of Services Regulations 2009 requires councils to ensure all procedures relating to access to, or the exercise of, a service activity may be easily completed, at a distance and by electronic means. The Regulations do not define the meaning of electronic or say if this includes email.

Government guidance; licensing applications

8. The Home Office publishes “Amended Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003” (June 2013).
9. This says applicants may use the licence application forms available on GOV.UK, or they will be re-directed from GOV.UK to the licensing authority’s own electronic facility, if one is available. Applicants may also apply directly to the licensing authority’s facility without going through GOV.UK. It remains acceptable to make an application in writing.
10. The licensing authority must copy electronic applications, made via GOV.UK or its own facility, to responsible authorities. However, if an applicant submits any part of their application in writing, the applicant will remain responsible for copying it to responsible authorities.

Council policy; licensing applications

11. The Council’s website (May 2021) says people can apply for a license via GOV.UK.

What happened

12. Mr X says he completed a license application and sent relevant documents to the Council by email. He also called the Council and paid the fee by phone. However, he says the Council later told him it could not accept his application; it needed a hard copy application with a wet signature.
13. On 20 March 2020 Mr X complained to the Council the law allowed him to send the application by email. By requiring a hardcopy this meant he had to deliver this to all relevant parties. Further, this meant leaving his home during the COVID-19 lockdown to post or deliver documents, putting himself at risk. In addition, the Council did not warn on its website that it would not accept electronic applications.
14. The Council acknowledged the complaint on 22 March and said it would provide a full response in due course. However, it told Mr X it was currently unable to accept electronic applications through GOV.UK and that was the only lawful method to receive electronic applications. It apologised for this and suggested he post the documents to ensure social distancing. The Council also said it would update its website to prevent similar concerns in future.
15. Mr X replied to say email was an electronic communication that the Council could accept.
16. On 6 April Mr X contacted the Council again. He wanted his complaint dealt with at stage 1 of its formal complaints process. He also noted the Council had not updated its website.
17. On 20 April the Council apologised for the delay and explained this was due to increased workload during the pandemic.
18. Mr X chased the Council on 6 July and 24 August.
19. The Council replied to the complaint on 26 August. It apologised for the delay and said it would treat the complaint at stage 2 given the delay. It explained the complaint was overlooked due to the volume of work and the need to divert so much staff resource to COVID-19 activities. However, it had discussed with staff about having a system in place to prevent recurrence. The Council explained it was unable to accept his email application because:
• Some consultees could not accept documents electronically;
• Meeting face to face allowed further vetting of applicants;
• Up to June 2019 a neighbouring authority administered applications. It then brought this in house but had not completed this project by March 2020 when it lost a key staff member. It was in the process of recruiting new staff. It would then prioritise this work in April 2021 once it merged to become part of West Northamptonshire Council.
• He could contact the Ombudsman if he remained unhappy.
20. Mr X responded further on 27 August. He maintained the Council acted unlawfully in refusing to accept his email as an electronic application. And he noted other councils accepted email applications.
21. Mr X chased a response on 30 November.
22. On 2 December the Council confirmed it had already provided a response at stage 2 and he could contact the Ombudsman.
23. In March 2021, in correspondence to the Ombudsman, the Council said:
• It had issues with resources and software so could not yet accept electronic online applications via GOV.UK.
• In its view an application by email was not an electronic application. It did not comply with licensing legislation and guidance, as it was not secure or reliable. Verification of original documents was not possible, and data would still have to be input separately. It was also a consideration that some statutory consultees did not accept emails directly from applicants.
• Once received, it did use emails to process applications wherever possible.  

Findings

24. Councils have a legal obligation to ensure the public can access their services electronically. In respect of license applications, this may be via GOV.UK or through the Council’s own electronic facility.
25. I note the Council’s interpretation of “electronic” does not include email. I also note Mr X’s view that it does and that other councils accept email applications. However, the interpretation of “electronic” is a matter of the Council’s judgement. And any further dispute as to the interpretation of the legislation is a matter for the courts.
26. From June 2019 to April 2021 at the earliest, the Council did not accept electronic license applications through GOV.UK and had no electronic facility of its own. The Council therefore failed to ensure members of the public could apply for a license electronically. While I acknowledge the Council’s various reasons as to why it could not or would not accept electronic applications, its legal obligations remained. This is significant fault.
27. Mr X wanted to apply by email, however I am satisfied he would have used an electronic facility if available. I therefore find that because of the Council’s fault, Mr X was put to inconvenience delivering hardcopies to the Council and other parties. The Council should remedy this injustice. The Council should also take action to prevent this fault continuing and affecting others.
28. The Council had already planned to continue work to put relevant systems in place from April 2021. However, I will recommend the Council commit to a timeframe to complete this action.
29. The Council’s significant delay responding to Mr X’s complaint from March to August 2020 amounts to fault. And Mr X was put to time and trouble chasing the Council as a result. I note the Council has already apologised, provided an explanation and considered action to prevent recurrence. However, it is not clear what action it has taken. I also consider a personal remedy is due to Mr X.
30. There was a further delay in the Council’s response from August to December 2020. However, as the Council had already provided a final response and directed Mr X to the Ombudsman, I find this delay did not cause Mr X further significant injustice.
31. As to the content of the Council’s complaint responses, I have found no fault in its refusal to accept email applications. However, its complaint responses do not acknowledge its legal obligation to offer electronic applications. And, it has still not updated its website as agreed. I therefore find fault. Mr X was caused upset due to the Council’s apparent lack of awareness of its legal obligations and was put to further time and trouble contacting the Ombudsman as a result.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. To remedy the injustice set out above I recommend the Council carry out the following actions:
33. Within one month:
• Write to Mr X to include:
1. An apology for the fault identified above.
2. The steps taken to prevent staff from overlooking complaints in future.
3. When the Council expects to offer electronic license applications.
• Provide a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman.
• Pay Mr X £100 for distress and inconvenience.
• Pay Mr X £100 for time and trouble in the complaints process.
34. Within three months:
• Make relevant staff aware of the Council’s legal obligation to offer electronic license applications and ask staff to take this into account when responding to any similar complaints in future.
• Ensure its website provides correct information on the availability of electronic license applications.
• Provide the Ombudsman with an update on its actions to enable electronic license applications.
35. The Council has accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I find the Council at fault because it does not ensure people can complete electronic license applications. And because its handling of Mr X’s complaint was inadequate. The Council has accepted my recommendations and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman