Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered a licence application for premises near the complainant’s home. This is because it is unlikely further investigation would find fault by the Council or provide a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains the Council did not properly consider his objections when considering a licence application from the owner of a neighbouring property. Mr X believes granting the licence will have a detrimental impact on his life due to noise levels in his flat.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 may decide not to start an investigation if we believe:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• we investigation would not provide a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6 as amended))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. In August 2020 Mr X complained to the Council about noise from an event run by the owner of a neighbouring property. An officer from the noise team was sent to assess the situation and licensing enforcement officers and police license officers were later asked to look into things further.
5. During later visits, a licencing enforcement officer found live, amplified music being played and instructed this be stopped until an appropriate licence was acquired.
6. No licence had been issued at the point Mr X contacted the Council. This being the case, we would not be able to say the Council was at fault in the way it assessed a licence application. The Council seems to have taken reasonable steps to enforce compliance once it was alerted to the unlicensed event. Further investigation would be unlikely to find fault with its actions.
7. As the events have finished, it is not likely further investigation would provide a different outcome.
8. Mr X has raised concerns about the Council’s licensing process in general. He complains the Council does not do enough to let immediate neighbours know of licensing applications or consider the impact the licences will have.
9. If the owner of the building applies for a premises licence, the Council will carry out consultation before deciding whether to grant it. If the owner applies for a temporary event licence, there is no requirement for the Council to consult the public, including neighbours.
10. The Council has discretion to consider license applications as it sees fit and this is not something we would generally interfere with. Where the Council processes an application in line with its published guidelines we would be unlikely to say it is at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I have decided we should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely further investigation would find fault with the Council and we would be unlikely to achieve any different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman