Summary: We do not intend to investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant a pavement licence allowing a tea shop to have a table and chairs on the pavement. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X says the Council:
• did not follow its own policies when granting the pavement licence
• disregarded the precedents; and
• failed to follow Government Policy

He also says the table and chairs impede pedestrians and add to noise and nuisance disturbance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A (6) and 34B (8), 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. The complainant now has an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council licensed a tea shop in the road where Mr X lives to put 1 table and 2 chairs on the pavement. Mr X complains about how the Council decided to grant the pavement licence.
8. As paragraph 3 explained, we will not necessarily investigate every complaint that a Council is at fault. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to regulate or oversee councils’ activities generally. We must consider whether the alleged fault caused Mr X a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman spending time and public money investigating.
9. Mr X says the single table and 2 chairs impedes the passage of pedestrians as the pavement is too narrow. He also says they add to noise and nuisance. However, he lives on a busy road. I do not consider him having to avoid the table and chairs or the noise caused by two persons occupying the chairs, to be a significant enough injustice for us to investigate.
10. Mr X says other pavement users are inconvenienced and possibly put in danger if they must step into the road to avoid the obstructions caused by the table and chairs. However, he does not have the authority to complain on behalf of anyone else. Should other people believe the pavement licence causes them a significant personal injustice, they are free to make their own complaint.

Back to top

Draft decision

11. We do not intend to investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered a significant personal injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman