Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about issues in connection with the decision to grant an alcohol licence to Cheadle Town football club. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find sufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s response. And, because it was reasonable to expect the complainant to use his right of appeal to court.

The complaint

1. In short, Mr X raises various concerns in connection with an alcohol licence granted to Cheadle Town football club.
2. Mr X says this was an unfair decision affected by corruption and will cause noise and unruly behaviour for residents. He would prefer the licence to restrict the alcohol sales to match days only.

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. (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 Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X has been complaining about the way a decision to grant an alcohol licence was made and is concerned the Council ignored the club selling alcohol without the correct licence. He also raised objections to a proposed music festival by the club that was subsequently cancelled.
8. The Council advises that the club already held a club premises certificate allowing alcohol sales to club members/guests but not away fans. The Council says once this issue was brought to its attention, it found the club showed willingness to apply for the correct Temporary Events Notice and licence. And its officers found no evidence of any intention by the club to break the law. The Council explains ‘enforcement’ action against the club could not be justified as it is required to act proportionately. Further, the decision to grant licence was made by committee, which was aware of Mr X’s complaints, even if he could not attend the committee meeting in person to raise objections.
9. Mr X remains unhappy with the situation and has accused the Council of bribery and corruption. The Council’s complaint investigation found its officers have acted correctly when considering Mr X’s complaints. It says there is no evidence of bribery and corrupt decision making but if Mr X has evidence of the serious allegations he is making, he should provide it.
10. We will not investigate. There is no evidence the Council has failed to follow the law and accepted practice in taking proportionate action when considering Mr X’s complaints. An investigation would therefore be unlikely to result in finding fault with the Council’s actions.
11. We also find it was reasonable to expect Mr X to use his legal right to appeal to court on the committee decision to grant the licence to sell alcohol.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would be unlikely to find sufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s actions. And, because it was reasonable to use his right to appeal to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman