Summary: We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a street trading licence for a business operating outside his home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr Z complains that the Council granted an extension to a street trader’s licence, disregarding local opposition and the fact that the location was outside a residential property. Mr Z says that the Council should not have issued the license and that he has faced intimidation and harassment because of his opposition to the trader’s location. Mr Z says he had to sell his home and is seeking assistance with costs he incurred, as well as amendments to the Council’s policy and practice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr Z and the Council, including the responses to Mr Z’s complaints. I have also considered the relevant reports and minutes published by the Council’s Street Trading Sub Committee, available on the Council’s website.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mr Z had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision. I have considered his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council provides guidance about applying for street trading licences on its website. The accompanying policy document explains that where valid objections are received, the application may be referred to a hearing of the Council’s Street Trading Sub-Committee for a decision to be made on the application, with all parties invited to attend the hearing.
7. The licence in question was granted at a Sub-Committee hearing in 2020. A variation to the licence was granted at a further hearing in 2021. The minutes show that, on both occasions, objections were raised by local stakeholders concerning the location of the trader and the impact this would have on surrounding public and private amenities. Objectors were able to present their concerns directly. At both hearings, the Sub-Committee considered these objections, reviewed evidence, and took advice from officers.
8. The minutes confirm that the Sub-Committee’s consideration of the various objections included the specific issues raised by Mr Z. But the decisions to grant the licence and any extensions to it were matters for the Sub-Committee, decided on merit, and we cannot compel the Council to reach a different view on the grounds that Mr Z disagrees with its decisions.
9. Allegations of harassment or intimidation against Mr Z were not raised in the minutes of either hearing. These are matters better investigated by the Police. If such allegations had been reported and brought to the attention of the Council, it would have been reasonable for the Council to take account of the findings of any investigation in its decision making. The minutes of hearing confirm that the Police were invited to submit concerns to the panel, but none were received.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Ombudsman is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman