Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint on how it dealt with reports about the actions of a licenced street trader in his area, and how it responded to his reports and complaints. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, nor sufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of, to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X has autism and is disabled and lives about 50 metres from a site where a food van has been licensed to trade by the Council. Originally a six-month licence, it has since been extended a further year. Mr X complains the Council:
1. did not find the owner misrepresented their business’ use of a generator in their evidence to the Licensing Committee;
2. did not properly investigate his concerns or take account of his evidence about the generator;
3. has not taken action against the business owner for trading while a funeral was underway at a nearby religious building;
4. improperly required the proprietors of the religious building to give the trader notice of any funerals;
5. has refused to investigate the trader making allegations of harassment against him to the police, which he says are malicious;
6. failed to respond to his complaints in a way which took proper account of his autism.
2. Mr X says he does not hear the generator but sometimes smells its fumes if the wind is blowing in the right direction. He says he walks dogs in a park and has to pass the van and finds the fumes and noise unpleasant. Mr X says he sometimes must pass in the road as the pavement is often filled with customers and their bicycles. He says he was distressed and upset to see the trader operating outside a religious building while a funeral was happening. Mr X says he has lost confidence in the Council due to the way it investigated his complaint. He says he is unwilling to go out when the trader is on site because of concerns regarding further reporting of harassment or retaliation. Mr X says he was caused anxiety due to vague communication, worsened by his autism. He has concern for the wider community if similar incidents happen.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• 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

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, relevant online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we consider the process they have followed to make their decision. We cannot replace a decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. Mr X considers the street trader gave inaccurate information to the licensing committee when they received their licence. He says they misrepresented at the committee how much they would be using a diesel generator. The Council says the generator use was not part of the original licence. But licensing officers visited the business several times to try and witness the generator in use. They also considered Mr X’s video and photographic evidence of the generator. Officers determined they could not establish from the evidence received from Mr X and the information they gathered that the generator was being used more than had been indicated at the licensing committee. They did not find the trader was in breach of their licence. Officers advised Mr X to make any complaint about noise or fumes from the generator to the environmental health team.
8. Officers followed their process to investigate Mr X’s reports of noise and fumes from the generator. Their professional judgement was that the evidence they had before them did not give them grounds to take action against the trader and their licence. That was a decision officers were entitled to take. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Even if there was fault by the Council which means the business owner has incorrectly been allowed to continue trading and using the generator, we will not investigate. Mr X lives about 50 metres away from the trader’s pitch, with a road in between. At that distance, the generator sounds or smells would not cause such impact on Mr X or his property to amount to a significant personal injustice. When reporting his concerns to the Council, Mr X says the generator was audible and he could smell its fumes when he was 10 to 15 metres away from it. We understand Mr X may walk close to the generator at some times. But that would be his choice. Even if his route past the trader’s pitch is unavoidable, this temporary proximity when the generator is on would not be such an impact on him to amount to a significant personal injustice. We note Mr X says he is worried about the impact of the trader on other people in the area. But any effects to others are not an injustice to him.
10. Mr X complained about the business trading while a funeral was being held at the nearby religious property. The Council says the terms of the trader’s licence require them not to trade if the religious building owners inform them a week before there will be a funeral. Officers investigated and found the trader had not been forewarned but delayed their trading until they believed the event had ended. They determined the trader had not breached the terms of their licence. Mr X also complained the requirement for the religious building’s owners to tell the trader about future funerals or other sensitive events is improper.
11. Even if there was Council fault and officers should have found the trader in breach of their licence, we will not investigate. We understand Mr X was upset by the incident. But he was not a part of the funeral party so was not directly affected by any actions of the trader. His upset, on behalf of other attendees of the funeral, is insufficient significant personal injustice to him to warrant us investigating. Mr X is also not personally affected by the licence condition requiring the owners of the religious property to advise the trader about future events. It causes no injustice to Mr X for that condition to be in place.
12. Mr X says the Council should have taken account of the trader’s allegations of harassment against him, which he says were false, to determine whether they were a fit and proper person to continue to hold their licence. The trader and Mr X have both made allegations of harassment against one another. The allegations have been all been reported to the police. The police decided not to take further action on either set of allegations. It was for the Council to consider what weight to give these allegations when assessing the trader’s suitability for a licence. Officers would be entitled to take into account that the police took no further action regarding the trader when making their licensing decision. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant us investigating. If the police decide to pursue either Mr X or the trader for harassment that would be a separate criminal matter and would not involve the Council.
13. Even if there was fault by the Council on this issue leading to the business owner continuing to trade with their licence, we will not investigate. We note Mr X says he is unwilling to go out when the trader is there because he is worried about further allegations of harassment. If there are further allegations about Mr X by the trader, that would be an impact on Mr X stemming directly from the actions and personal decisions of the trader, not from the decision of the Council to allow them to continue trading. The trader’s pitch is about 50 metres away from Mr X’s property so the trader’s presence has no significant impact on him when he is at home. Mr X can choose how close he goes to the trader’s pitch whenever he might need to walk in its direction, and choose how long he spends near the site before moving on. It is under Mr X’s own control to decide how he should act if he wishes to avoid future accusations.
14. We understand Mr X considers the Council responses to his complaints did not properly take account of his need for clear and unambiguous communication because of his autism. Mr X did not make any reasonable adjustment requests of the Council about the content and form of their replies when he made his complaints to them. On one complaint form in autumn 2025 he mentioned his autism and includes the words ‘extra time’, indicating his condition might mean he needs more time to respond. But he made no request about the content or form of the Council’s replies. From the evidence I have seen, the Council has sought to reply clearly to the various issues Mr X has raised. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its replies to warrant us investigating. One officer reply did not provide enough detail on his concern about the funeral issue, which the Council accepts should not have happened. But the Council apologised to Mr X for this. There is insufficient unremedied injustice to Mr X from that officer reply to warrant us investigating. It is unfortunate Mr X has lost confidence on the Council because of the way it dealt with his complaints. But that is not a sufficient significant injustice which would justify an investigation.
15. Taking all matters into consideration and with due regard for Mr X’s personal circumstances and conditions, there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating, so we will not do so.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating; and
• even if there was Council fault, the matters complained of do not cause him such significant personal injustice to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman