Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to increase its street trading licence fees. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to revise its street trading policy and increase its fees for consents.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council’s decision to significantly increase its street trading licence fees is unfair. Mr X says that as a result of the price increase, he may not be able to continue to trade.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

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

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 have:

• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
• Discussed the issues with Mr X
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Mr X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

6. Street trading is governed by the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Paragraph 9 (1) of Schedule 4 provides a district council may charge such fees as they consider reasonable for the grant or renewal of a street trading licence or consent. The fees charged should reflect the cost of administering the street trading licence or consent scheme, including processing and compliance with the consents.

What happened

7. Mr X is a street trader and held consents to trade at a sports ground. Prior to 2021, the Council charged Mr X £394 for the consent. Following a review of its street trading policy in 2020, the Council now charges £3225 plus £724 application fee for an occasional sports stadia consent for 20-30 days. Mr X holds this consent.
8. The Council’s review of its street trading licensing policy which proposed a number of changes to the policy and fee structure. In carrying out the review, the Council consulted a number of organisations, the public and its Licensing and Public Protection Committee. It also notified existing street trader consent holders and explained how to comment.
9. Mr X has provided a copy of a letter from officers which explained the Council was reviewing the street trading policy and this would affect all traders on red routes. Mr X has said he did not think the review would affect his business as he did not trade on a red route.
10. The Council approved the revised policy on 3 November 2020. The Licensing and Public Protection Committee then considered the review of street trading consent fees and charges for 2021/22. Officers submitted a report to the Committee explaining:

• The proposed fees within the report reflected the resources required to administer the revised street trading scheme. The proposed fees were based on projected estimations and actual expenditure costs for the street trading service in 2021/22.
• The fees were split between an application fee and consent fee due to case law. Each fee took account of salary costs, overhead costs, processing and activity times.
• The most significant reason for the higher costs of the sports stadia consent was because compliance visits needed to be carried out in pairs to ensure health and safety. This was due to the crowded environment and time of day. The proposed fees for the occasional sports stadia consent.
• The total forecast expenditure for 2020/21 was in the region of £482,000 and the total forecast income was £300,000. The street trading fees and charges would be recalculated annually.
• It held a consultation regarding the proposed fees and charges between 13 November and 10 December 2020. The Council received three responses which objected to the proposed fee increases. The Council explained why these objections could not be sustained.

11. The Committee approved the fee changes and increases.
12. The Council reviewed the fees in November 2021 and reduced some of the fees. The fees were calculated having regard to its finalized accounts.

Analysis

13. Councils are entitled to set their own policies. It is not our role to decide the Council’s policy and what fees it should be charging. Our role is to examine how the Council made its decisions and whether there was any fault in that process.
14. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reviewed its street trading policy and fee structure. The Council made its decision to approve the revised policy following consultation. The Council set out its reasoning for the changes to the policy in its report to the Council and reported the issues raised by the consultations. So, I am satisfied the Council meeting gave consideration to the issues and had sufficient information when approving the revised policy.
15. The law provides councils can charge fees for street trading consents and set those fees at a level they consider to be reasonable. The report to the Licensing and Public Protection Committee set out the expenditure and income and the reasoning for the significant increase in the fees for occasional sports stadia consents. So,I am satisfied the Council has explained how it set the fees. I am also satisfied the Committee had sufficient information when making its decision to approve the fees.
16. Mr X did not comment on the proposed revised policy as he says the Council’s letter led him to believe it only affected traders on red routes. I also do not know if Mr X was consulted on the increased fees. However, it is not proportionate to investigate these matters further. This is because officers report to the Licensing and Public Protection Committee set out the objections to the fees increases and why these could not be sustained. So, the Committee was aware of the concerns about the fee increases being unaffordable when making its decision. I am therefore satisfied further investigation would not achieve anything for Mr X.
17. I acknowledge Mr X is very concerned the changes to the street trading policy and increased fees will have a significant impact on his business. But I do not have grounds to question the Council’s policy and fee increases as there is no evidence of fault in how those decisions were reached.

Back to top

Final decision

18. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to revise its street trading policy and increase its fees for consents. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman