Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his skip licence applications and his complaint about the matter. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is unlikely our involvement would lead to a different outcome. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures alone.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s handling of his skip licence applications. He says this has caused him financial loss. He also complains about the Council’s delay responding to his complaint. He wants the Council to reduce the application processing timeframe in its policy, handle applications consistently, and reimburse him for retrospective licence charges.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr Y says he frequently applies for skip licences for his business. He complained that the Council’s timeframe to process licence applications is 28 days. He said this turnaround is longer than other councils and means he loses customers who cannot wait this long.
5. In its response, the Council said it was reviewing its processing timeframe against other comparable council standards. It said it would consider the findings and make any recommended changes.
6. We will not investigate this part of Mr Y’s complaint. There is no required time limit for councils to process skip licence applications, so it is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council’s current policy. The Council has also committed to reviewing its policy. It is unlikely our involvement would achieve a different outcome.
7. Mr Y complained the Council’s handling of applications was inconsistent and he was concerned it unfairly expedited some applications, dependent on the customer. He said its inconsistent handling of applications caused him financial loss, including the need for more expensive retrospective licences.
8. In its response, the Council said it had investigated Mr Y’s concerns about preferential treatment. It confirmed the relevant application was processed in order of date received, which is the Council’s process. It said its quick turnaround was due to low workload at the time and found no evidence its officer had been unduly influenced to process the application more quickly.
9. The Council also reviewed its processing times for Mr Y’s other applications. It said it had processed nine out of ten of his most recent applications within one working day. It said it was satisfied his applications were treated consistently.
10. The Council said it had charged Mr Y for retrospective licences where it found no evidence of applications for skips he had placed on the highway.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has appropriately investigated and responded to Mr Y’s concerns, and it has explained why it had charged Mr Y for retrospective licences. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of these matters to warrant an investigation.
12. Mr Y also complained the Council’s complaint response was two weeks late.
13. We will not investigate this remaining part of Mr Y’s complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is unlikely our involvement would lead to a different outcome. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures alone.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman