Summary: A man complained about the Council’s decisions to defer two committee hearings regarding an event licence at short notice after the applicant said he could not attend. But we do not have grounds to investigate this matter as there is no sign of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained about the Council’s decisions to postpone two successive Licensing Sub-Committee hearings which were due to consider an application for a licence to hold a local event he objected to. On both occasions this was because the applicant for the licence informed the Council at short notice that he could not attend. Mr B said this caused considerable inconvenience to objectors who had made arrangements to go to the meetings. In the circumstances Mr B felt the Council should have proceeded with a hearing in the applicant’s absence, and its decisions to defer matters instead showed that it was biased in his favour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint and his comments in response to a draft version of this decision. I also took account of documents the Council’s website about the Sub-Committee’s consideration of the application in question.

My assessment

5. But I have concluded that there is no sign of fault by the Council in respect of its decisions to defer the licensing hearings.
6. First, I note that, in the event of a party being unable to attend a hearing, the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 give councils discretion to hold the hearing in the party’s absence or, if it is in the public interest, to adjourn the hearing to a later date. So the Council evidently made a decision it was empowered to make under the Regulations.
7. In addition, I consider the Council provided a reasoned explanation for why it decided on two occasions that it was in the public interest to postpone rather than proceed with a hearing, despite the inconvenience this would cause. In particular the Council said it doubted it could make an informed decision about the application without hearing from the applicant, and without having an opportunity to ask questions and raise any public concerns with him.
8. Therefore I consider that the Council was reasonably entitled to decide to adjourn the hearings in the circumstances. I am not convinced there is any indication of fault in the Council’s decision-making in this respect which would give us grounds to question the merits of its decisions, or to suggest it should necessarily have decided to proceed with a hearing in the applicant’s absence. I am also not convinced that there is any evidence the Council was biased in favour of the applicant in the way it dealt with these matters.

Final decision

9. We do not have reason to investigate Mr B’s complaint concerning the Council’s decisions to postpone two committee hearings which were due to consider an application for an events licence. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council regarding this matter to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman