Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to agree a licence application to allow an event to take place and the conduct of a councillor at the licensing meeting. It was reasonable to expect Mr X to make representations to the licensing committee and then use a right of appeal to the Courts about the Council’s decision to allow the licence. And we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking to alter the licence and remove the councillor from future licensing meetings. So, we have ended our investigation into the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council allowed an event to take place. Mr X says the Council:
• Did not consider the impact of the event on wildlife protected by law or carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment.
• Allowed a councillor to use his position to pass a licence for the event which breached several wildlife laws.
• Failed to investigate his complaint the councillor breached the Code of Conduct for members when dealing with the licence application.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused him distress. He requests that we alter the terms of the licence for the event and remove the councillor from any committees or meetings which deal with licensing applications.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,

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

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr X’s complaint, the information he provided, and discussed the complaint with him.
• considered the Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaints and the information it provided.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Council received a licence application for an event to take place in a public park. The Council dealt with the application at a committee that considers licensing applications. Mr X objected to the licence, made representations and attended the committee hearing. Unfortunately, Mr X’s representations were received out of the time to submit comments, but he was able to address the committee about his wildlife concerns though another objector The committee approved the application subject to conditions. The decision notice explained that anyone who made a valid representation about the application had the right of appeal against the committee’s decision to the magistrates’ court.
9. Mr X complained to the Council about the actions of a councillor on the committee. Mr X said the councillor breached the Code of Conduct, failed to declare an interest and should not have been on the Committee. The Council’s Monitoring Officer, who deals with complaints about an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct, decided it was not appropriate to investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Monitoring Officer said there was no evidence of a conflict of interest by the councillor.
10. We do not offer a right of appeal against a council’s decision on member conduct complaints, but we can consider if there was any fault in the way the council considered the complaint. We will only investigate complaints if there is sufficient injustice to warrant our involvement or we consider it is in the public interest to do so. In this case the Monitoring Officer decided not to investigate Mr X’s concerns further. While Mr X may not agree this is a decision the Council is entitled to make. There is no evidence of fault in the way the decision was reached as the Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns and information provided before deciding not to investigate further. So, there are no grounds for us to question the Council’s consideration of the complaint and to continue our involvement in the complaint.
11. In this case the means to object to the event and licence application was to make representations to the committee. This opportunity was available to Mr X if he disagreed or objected to the proposed event. And it would have allowed Mr X the right to appeal to the magistrates’ court if he disagreed with the Council’s decision to grant the licence or conditions imposed. As Parliament has established this right, we would consider it a more suitable route for Mr X to use to challenge the Council’s decision. And we would consider it reasonable to expect him to use that appeal route as the courts are better placed to consider Mr X’s concerns about the grant of the licence.
12. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking to alter the licence especially as the event has taken place. And we cannot remove the councillor from any committees or meetings which deal with licensing applications. That is a matter for the Council to decide. So, I am ending my investigation into Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have ended my investigation into Mr X’s complaint. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s complaint about an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct by a councillor. It was open to expect Mr X to make representations to the licensing committee about the event. And we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking over the licence and councillor’s membership of a committee.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman