Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a decision, or how the Council took a decision, relating to a licensing application. X had an appeal right to challenge the decision in court. And given only the court could change the outcome, it was reasonable to expect X to use their court remedy here. Nor will we consider any delays in the Council making that decision because there is no significant injustice to X.

The complaint

1. X complained about the decision the Council took in relation to a licensing application. They said it did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision, had a pre-determined mindset to agree it, and did not properly consider their representations. X also said the Council unreasonably delayed making its decision after the hearing and it was at fault in the way it considered a complaint about this matter.
2. X is now concerned about the potential for disruption, because of the decision to grant a licence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. X complained to the Council, after it agreed to grant a licensing application. X said it had not provided sufficient reasons for why it had done so, had not been transparent enough about its decision-making and had not shown it had properly considered theirs and other representations against the application.
8. The Council notified X about their right to appeal its decision with the Magistrates Court. X did not appeal this decision and set out their reasons about why they did not do so, in their complaint to us. I have considered their reasons, but on balance I am satisfied it would have been reasonable for X to appeal the decision.
9. Consequently, I will not investigate any matters which are linked to that appeal right, and this relates to how the Council decided the application, the information it took account of or how it considered representations.
10. Notwithstanding, X said the Council was at fault because it delayed making a decision, after the hearing, for over two months beyond reasonable expectations.
11. I will not investigate this part of the complaint, because X has not been caused any significant injustice by the fault he alleges.
12. Nor will I consider a complaint about the way the Council handled X’s complaint. It is not a proportionate use of public resources, to consider complaints about complaint handling, where we decide not to investigate the substantive matters.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate X’s complaint because had had an appeal right on the substantive decision and there is no significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman