Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s licencing decision-making. This is because we have decided any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Councils failure to align planning and licencing regulations, which allowed a pub to operate outside of regulatory controls.
2. Mr Y also complains about the conduct of councillors. He says their personal link with a local developer places an unfair disadvantage on his own business.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. People may complain to us about injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ by a public organisation we could investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1) or section 34C(1)(a)).
4. 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), or section 34B(8)).
5. We will not normally investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), or section 34B(8)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr Y says a pub has been operating unlawfully for eight years. The Council explained the pub had not operated outside of imposed licencing controls, but the breach was about planning conditions. It explained it had discretion to take enforcement action against planning breaches. It confirmed it had engaged with the operators about this.
9. Mr Y says councillors have a direct personal link with a local developer. The Council investigated this and found no evidence to support this claim. If Mr Y believes councillors have breached the member’s code of conduct, he can make a separate complaint to the Council’s Monitoring Officer.
10. The law means we can choose only to investigate a complaint where the person has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the body complained about. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
11. Mr Y says his business is subject to rigid and discriminatory enforcement, whilst the pub enjoys light-touch regulation. I recognise the circumstances of Mr Y’s complaint have affected him, but this is not significant enough to warrant us investigating.
12. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern, but where they have not suffered injustice.
13. Mr Y has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman