Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to ensure a licence application notice was visible to residents. There is not enough evidence of a significant personal injustice to Miss X to warrant our involvement. In any case, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council did not ensure a notice, intended to tell residents about a premises licence application, was visible. She said the applicant did not display it correctly and the Council did not appropriately respond to this concern.
2. Miss X said this delayed her right and reduced the time she had available to make objections to the application.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

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. In May 2025, an application for a premises licence near Miss X’s home was submitted to the Council.
7. When somebody submits a premises licence application, they must display a notice to advertise the application for no less than 28 days. This allows residents to make objections and representations about the application.
8. Miss X complained the applicant did not display the notice properly, as it was not visible from the road outside the premises. Miss X said the Council did not act when she raised this concern and this meant residents did not have the full 28 days to prepare and give their objections.
9. 12 people made objections and the Council considered them as part of the licence application hearing.
10. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the Council.
11. In this case, I am not satisfied Miss X suffered a significant personal injustice. Miss X gave her objections, which the Council considered as part of the licence application hearing.
12. I have reviewed the publicly available minutes of the licence application hearing. On balance, I do not believe that Miss X having additional time to prepare representations would have changed the outcome of the Council’s decision. Therefore, I do not consider she has suffered a significant injustice.
13. In any case, I do not believe any worthwhile outcome is achievable by our involvement here.
14. In its complaint response, the Council acknowledged it could have asked the applicant to display additional notices and said it will take this learning forwards for future applications.
15. There is likely no other worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating Miss X’s complaint.
16. For these reasons, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of a significant personal injustice to warrant our involvement and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman