Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to a request for action under its licencing powers. There is not enough evidence of a significant injustice to Mr X, and in any case, it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his request for it to take licensing enforcement action against an entertainment venue. Mr X said, the Council:
• Should undertake further preventative work to reduce discrimination;
• Failed to properly respond to his requests to discuss this matter, and;
• Did not respond to his requests for detailed information.
2. Mr X said he was concerned the Council did not respond properly either because of the nature of the discrimination alleged or because of his religion.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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. Mr X became aware of an incident during an event at an entertainment venue, which he said amounted to discrimination of parts of the audience. Mr X acknowledged he was not at the event but was concerned about it. Mr X asked the Council to consider what steps it proposed to take in relation to the licence holder, where the event had taken place.
8. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern but where they have not suffered injustice.
9. As Mr X was not at the event, there is not enough evidence he has suffered a significant injustice directly because of the actions of the Council in considering its response to the incident.
10. Furthermore, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the way an organisation made a decision. In this instance the Council said it had met with the management at the venue and had satisfied itself it had no regulatory role. Given the Council’s response here, I am satisfied it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s response to its licensing duties.
11. Mr X remains unhappy about how the Council considered and responded to his complaints about this matter, however we will not investigate his complaint about this. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, where we decide not to look at the substantive issue.
12. Finally, Mr X also said he was unhappy the Council did not provide him with detailed information relating to its licensing duties. These are matters, which are best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office, and we will not consider them further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence he has suffered a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman