Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a licensing variation application as Mr X is not caused a level of injustice, from any alleged Council fault, that would warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has been biased and unfair in its dealings with him regarding his proposals to vary his premises licence. Mr X says this has restricted the operation of his business.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 any alleged fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X applied to the Council to vary his premises licence. The Council set a date to consider the application, but Mr X decided not to proceed due to various issues he had with the Council's handling of his application. Mr X complains to us of bias and unfairness by the Council.
8. While I recognise that Mr X has outstanding issues with how the Council dealt with his application, we will not investigate as any injustice caused to him is not sufficient to justify our further involvement. No decision was made on his application, and I do not consider the issues he raises represent a significant level of injustice. We have limited resources and must direct them to the most serious cases. This is not such a case in my view.
9. If there had been significant injustice when Mr X complained to us, that is, if the application had been refused, then it is likely we would have expected Mr X to address this using the right of appeal to the courts that would have been available to him, rather than us carrying out an investigation.
10. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice caused to Mr X is not sufficient to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman