Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his concerns about an incident at a social club. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter. We will also not investigate Mr X’s concerns about his Subject Access Request (SAR) to the club, as the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to consider data protection issues.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly investigate his report of homophobic abuse at a Social Club. He says the Council accepted the Club’s claim of an ongoing dispute without checking it. He also says the Council failed to recognise that the Club victimised him after he made a protected complaint. Mr X believes the Council treated the matter as a personal dispute rather than a hate‑related incident. He also says the Council failed to consider that the Club did not respond to his Subject Access Request (SAR).

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 there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
   (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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 normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
9. The Council took the steps we would expect when responding to concerns about conduct at a licensed premises. It encouraged Mr X to make a complaint about the discriminatory abuse he experienced to the police. It also carried out a joint visit with police licensing officers, checked the premises licence, considered the information provided by both parties, and reviewed the matter again when Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two.
10. The Council was entitled to rely on the police as the responsible authority for crime and disorder and to decide no further licensing action was required. The Council has formally recommended that the club undertakes equality and diversity training, displays signage stating a zero‑tolerance approach to abusive, discriminatory and inappropriate behaviour, and puts procedures in place to deal with incidents of this nature.
11. While Mr X disagrees with the Council’s conclusions, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached them.
12. Mr X’s exclusion from the Club was a decision made by the Club, not the Council. Any injustice arising from that decision does not stem from Council fault. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable from further investigation.
13. I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
14. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to respond to his Subject Access Request. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to consider complaints about data protection and it is reasonable for Mr X to go them.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his concerns about an incident at a social club. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter. The ICO are best placed for concerns related to data matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman