Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his application for a street trader license. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council handled his application for a street trader license. He says the Council has treated him unfairly and this has delayed him starting his business.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)).
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains the Council refused his application for a street trader license. The Council’s policy says the trader must have the landowner’s consent to access the site before it could consider his application. Mr X did not get consent from the landowner and the Council refused him a license.
7. Mr X complains the Council gave permission to another street trader at the location. However, the Council explained the circumstances were different as the other trader had the landowner’s consent to access the land. Mr X complained that it was unfair the other trader had the landowner’s consent. However, the Council explained the decision was based on the individual circumstances and the information available in that case, including traffic levels, which would be different if Mr X had access.
8. The Council’s decision is in line with its policy and it gave reasons for reaching different decisions on another case. There is not enough evidence of fault in its decision making. Further, any fault in the Council’s decision to allow a third party a license did not directly cause injustice to Mr X.
9. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman