Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council connected to the issuing of a premises licence. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complainant had a right of appeal to the Magistrate’s Court and it was reasonable to expect him to use it.

The complaint

1. In summary, Mr X says the Council did not engage with the objectors in the same way it engaged with the applicant during the process to grant the licence.
2. Mr X says the noise levels are high and he cannot stay in his house when high noise events are scheduled. He says he is at risk of heart disease and a stroke due to the noise levels.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Licensing Act 2003 says a review applicant can appeal against the review decision within 21 days of the date they are notified of the decision. The Council's notice of decision set out the applicant’s right to appeal against the decision to the Magistrates Court.
9. As stated above, licensing decisions are appealable to the Magistrate’s Court. Where there is a specific statutory right to appeal against the council’s actions, the Ombudsman will not usually exercise discretion to investigate.
10. Mr X was told of his right of appeal. He did not exercise that right. As the law specifically gives review applicants a right of appeal against a decision they are unhappy with, it was reasonable to expect him to use the appeal right the law provides.
11. The court has powers, which the Ombudsman does not have, to overturn a licensing decision. Mr X could have presented the court with his objections to the licences and associated conditions. It would then have been for the court to decide if it had enough evidence to decide the appeal.
12. I note Mr X says he cannot afford to appeal. However, the process is free and easy to use via a letter of objection to the magistrate’s court.
13. I am sorry to read of Mr X’s ill-health and his concerns that his health is worsened by noise levels. As the Council has advised, the licensing regime does not deal with personal, common - law rights and private claims for compensation.
14. I note Mr X says he is complaining about the unfair process favouring the applicant. However, fundamentally he is disagreeing with the decision to grant the licence so it was reasonable to expect him to appeal and we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he was told of his appeal which was available to him for 21 days from the date he received the decision letter. It is reasonable to expect him to have used that right.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman