Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council decided a licensing application for the sale of alcohol. This is because the complainant objected to the application having made relevant representations during this process, and therefore has a right of appeal to the magistrates’ court. We consider the complainant could reasonably exercise that appeal right if he disagrees with the Council’s decision. We therefore have no jurisdiction to investigate.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr W) is complaining about the Council’s handling of licensing a nighttime venue selling alcohol. He says the licencing decision interferes with his right to quite enjoyment of his home, and that the Council’s process failed to take into account his disability needs. Mr W says the venue’s activities have a greater impact on him because of his disabilities and he believes the Council’s decision-making failed to take account of equality law. He alleges the Council failed to explain how its licensing decision was legal and proportionate.
2. In addition, Mr W says the Council failed to accommodate reasonable adjustments for him so he could be heard during its decision making process. He says it did not accommodate his specific disability needs which meant the Council’s committee meeting lacked accessibility.
3. In summary, Mr says the alleged fault has been very stressful to deal with and that the Council’s disregard of his disability needs has been hurtful. He feels his equality and human rights have been infringed. As a desired outcome, Mr W wants the licensing decision made at the Council’s committee meeting to be voided, and for it to explain how its decision-making was legally compliant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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;
• 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))

5. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Where a local authority approves a licencing application for the sale of alcohol (with or without conditions), any objecting person who has made representations may appeal the decision to the Magistrates’ Court if they disagree with this. I note Mr W objects to the licencing application and has made written representations to the Council (as the licencing authority) to this effect. Though I fully recognise the issues raised by Mr W and why these are important to him, our jurisdiction does not permit us to be able to investigate the substantive decision-making. This is because there is a prescribed court process and I see no evidence why it would be unreasonable for Mr W to exercise his appeal right.
8. We can more generally however consider the issues Mr W raises with regard to his complaint the Council failed to make to make the licencing process accessible and accommodating to his disability and health needs. While it is not for us to say whether, as a matter of law, the Council breached Mr W’s legal staturory rights, we would expect the Council to accommodate reasonable requests and handle these with good administrative practice and in a timely manner.
9. As I understand, Mr W wanted to deliver a pre-recorded video message to the Council’s licencing committee outlining his objections. This is because his disabilities make speaking face to face more challenging. The Council’s response to this matter does not suggest it would not ordinarily look to accommodate such a request. Rather, it points to this not being possible on this occasion due to Mr W having only made the request on the day prior to the meeting. In my view, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in relation to it not being able to accommodate the request at such short notice. In any event, the Council has confirmed Mr W’s objections were read out at the committee meeting and that all written representations are considered prior to a licencing decision being made. I do not consider the alleged fault therefore could have led to Mr W’s objections not being properly considered. There is therefore insufficient injustice in my view to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the restrictions I outline at paragraphs four and five (above) apply.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman