Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council refused to revoke a restaurant’s sitting out licence. This is because there is no evidence the complainant has suffered any significant personal injustice which would warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains the Council refused to revoke a sitting out licence for a local restaurant which he believes is in breach of its licence. He considers the restaurant has failed to meet the requirements of the licence as it has erected a decked seating area with glass panels, that is not temporary. He complains that pedestrians are forced to walk close to a busy road which poses a risk to them.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X, including responses from the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.
4. Mr X also commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council explained to Mr X that the restaurant’s structure was temporary and would be removed once the licence expired. It also explained that an alternative footway had been consulted on and agreed upon. Its stage 2 complaint response stated the same.
6. Mr X is unhappy with the response received from the Council. He says the Council is dismissing the risk to the public by having them walk close to seafront traffic.
7. Whilst the situation is a concern for Mr X, and he, as a pedestrian has had to walk close to the road, in a section around the decking dedicated to pedestrians, it has not caused him a significant personal injustice which would justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

8. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice which would warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman