Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her business licence renewal. There is not enough evidence of either fault or injustice to justify investigating further.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, runs an equestrian centre. She complains about how the Council handled her application to renew her business licence.
2. Mrs X says that:
• During an inspection visit, a Council officer made a remark suggesting Mrs X had previously circumvented the licensing process because the last inspector had let “all the pretty ones [get] away with murder”. When Mrs X complained about this, the officer denied making the remark – even though she had apologised for it on the telephone after the visit.
• Despite Mrs X providing documents to the Council in advance of the inspection visit, and offering to provide them during the visit, it failed to renew her licence in time, and repeatedly claimed she had not provided the correct documents.
3. Mrs X says this matter caused her distress, as well as a significant financial impact from the failure to renew her business licence. She wants compensation for both these things.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mrs X. I also considered the statutory guidance document, ‘Animal activity licensing process: statutory guidance for local authorities’.
6. Both Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. In mid-December 2022 the Council sent a text message to Mrs X. It read:

Your Animal Activities Licence expires on 28/02/2023. To renew your licence please visit our website … PLEASE NOTE, APPLICATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED 10 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRY DATE.

8. Mrs X says she was on holiday when she received the text message, and her husband had just been diagnosed with cancer, so she forgot to apply.
9. In January the Council contacted Mrs X to remind her about her renewal. It provided a link for the online application. It said she should do this soon, because she should have done it at least ten weeks before the renewal date. It asked her for relevant documents.
10. Mrs X completed the online application on 22 January. And, in early February, she sent relevant documents to the Council by email.
11. In mid-February, the Council conducted an inspection. Mrs X says:
• The officers told her the Council had lost all her documents from previous applications, and they could not open the documents she had sent this time either.
• They refused her offer to view the documents on-site, saying instead that they would contact her afterwards to ask for any documents they needed.
• One of the officers suggested Mrs X had not submitted certain documents in previous years, and said, “all the pretty ones were getting away with murder with [the last inspector]”.
12. At the end of February, Mrs X provided the documents to the Council again. She said she was unhappy with the officer’s remark during the inspection visit.
13. Mrs X’s licence expired the following day. She says she received a telephone call from the officer that evening to apologise for her remark. Mrs X says she accepted the officer’s apology.
14. In March, Mrs X provided the documents again, this time in a different format.
15. Due to the expiry of her licence, Mrs X then started taking steps to sell some of her stock. She also made a formal complaint to the Council.
16. At the end of March, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. It said it could now access all the relevant documents she had provided, and its inability to do so before had been an internal IT issue. It also said its officer had denied making the remark Mrs X had attributed to her.
17. It appears that, shortly afterwards, the Council renewed Mrs X’s licence (backdated to 1 March). Mrs X received this when she returned home from holiday in mid-April.

Statutory guidance

18. The guidance says:

The licence holder must apply to renew a licence at least 10 weeks before their current licence expires. This is to avoid incurring a break in the licensable activity, if they wish to continue to operate the licensable activity.

My findings

19. If Mrs X’s account is true, the officer’s comment to her during the inspection visit must have been irritating. But this does not, in itself, amount to an injustice which is significant enough to justify our involvement.
20. I have seen no evidence that the officer’s alleged comment was indicative of an approach to Mrs X’s licensing which put her at a significant disadvantage. Consequently, I will not investigate this part of her complaint.
21. I have also decided not to investigate the other part of Mrs X’s complaint (about the delay to the Council’s renewal of her licence). This is because the statutory guidance requires people to apply for renewals 10 weeks before they are due, to avoid a break in the licence. She did not do so.
22. I understand why Mrs X forgot about her renewal (given her personal circumstances at the time), and I accept that there were problems within the Council with IT which prevented it processing her application more quickly.
23. However, had Mrs X applied on time, it is likely that these problems would have been resolved in time. Her late application meant the Council did not have the proper opportunity to resolve IT issues before the renewal date.
24. It is unlikely I would find that the Council was at fault for this delay if I investigated further, so I will not investigate this part of Mrs X’s complaint either.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have discontinued my investigation. There is not enough evidence of either fault or injustice to justify investigating further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman