Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council conducted a Business Improvement District renewal ballot. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council approved a Business Improvement District (BID) renewal and boundary expansion ballot without verifying that businesses had been appropriately consulted. He said the resulting BID levy has had a detrimental effect on his finances because. He would like the Council to apologise, amend procedures and provide compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained the Council approved a BID renewal and expansion ballot without verifying that businesses had been appropriately consulted.
6. A BID is a defined area within which businesses are required to pay an additional tax on top of their business rates to fund projects within the area’s boundaries.
7. The Business Improvement Districts (England) Regulations 2004 state that a BID proposer must provide the Council with a summary of the consultation it has undertaken with those who are liable for the proposed BID levy. The BID organisation then ballots local businesses on the proposal and then, depending on the result, implements the BID.
8. In its complaint response, the Council told Mr X the BID proposer had provided a summary of consultation activities that took place in spring and summer 2025.
9. The Council considered the BID’s proposal to carry out a ballot at its July 2025 Cabinet meeting.
10. 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 the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
11. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when it considered the summary of consultation activities in advance of the BID’s proposal to carry out a ballot of local businesses. The organisation followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman