Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions following a report that a public house did not display the relevant licence. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not take action against a public house after he reported it failed to display its licence. He said the Council gave him contradictory information and failed to take action or provide him a copy of the licence. He wants an apology and for the Council to enforce its own regulations.

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X said he was assaulted at a public house that did not display the relevant licence. He reported this to the Council. In response to Mr X’s report the Council said it attended the public house and issued a warning for non-display of its licence. It also confirmed that the public house had a valid licence.
6. Mr X informed the Council he had further concerns about the licence the public house displayed. He also said the Council did not take into account the alleged assault against him.
7. The Council apologised that an administrative error had caused confusion with the licence dates and said it had rectified this on its system. It said it was unable to share a copy of the licence with Mr X due to data protection regulations but confirmed that when the Council visited the public house it was determined no further action was required.
8. The Council advised Mr X that the matter of the alleged assault was for the police and it could not comment.
9. Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate for the following reasons:
• The Council responded to Mr X’s concern by visiting the public house and issued a warning. It confirmed to Mr X that the public house held a valid licence. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council responded to Mr X’s concerns to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.
• If Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to provide him a copy of the licence, that would be a matter for the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). The ICO is responsible for investigating complaints about how organisations handle personal data.
• The Council correctly directed Mr X to contact the Police about the alleged assault.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman