The Fit and Proper Person Test that violates democratic equity

As all of us already know, introducing the `fit and proper` person test was to said to ensure that site owners or managers have the integrity, competence, and financial resources to run the site properly – but if found to be unfit, then the local authority could remove them.

The always hovering question was whether the council itself has the integrity, competence and financial resources to engage the powers - because if not, then nothing would change and potentially get worse. - and more than many living under rogue regimes know that it has.

The second always nonsense was and remains, that even if known be wholly unfit, the local authority is under no obligation to even see or hear the evidence. Moreover, whilst the owner/manager has the right to appeal to a First Tier Tribunal if the application is rejected or conditions are attached. the hapless residents have no direct right of appeal  against a council’s decision that a manager is "fit and proper" -  and so it is, that a system that allows one party to appeal a local authority decision while denying that same right to another party, clearly violates democratic equity.

In alternative contexts like planning or social care, this situation is commonly referred to as the `lack of third-party rights of appeal.`  To further example a developer has a right to appeal a refusal, but opponents (e.g., neighbours) have no similar right to appeal a grant of permission. Instead, because the third party cannot use the ordinary appeals system, they must instead challenge the lawfulness of the decision through judicial review in the courts. However, this is a much different process, focusing on procedural legality rather than the merits of the decision. 

Some will argue there are viable alternatives, in that local authorities may consider evidence from residents when assessing whether a site manager is fit and proper, although this is no duty to do so and seemingly, most did not. Residents can submit a formal complaint to the local authority and if the council's complaint process is not dealt with satisfactorily, they can escalate the complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman - and if that decision is believed to be legally flawed, it can be challenged in court through what is always a complex legal process. 

In short, the procedural avenues favours the `unfit`. Although the overseeing Local Authority can `choose` whether to act or not, if is doesn`t, then the unfit remain in place and if they do act , they can be challenged - and even if they succeed, then the outgoing unfit can simply be replaced with yet another and the cycle persists.

So, if you`re locally part of the May 2026 local council elections, you can remind the candidates that democratic equality in local government is supposed to ensure equal access to representation for all community members to ensure local councils represent the diverse populations they serve. 

But then again, although I`d expect each and all of them to agree as candidates, putting this into practice if they`re elected, will be quite another thing.