Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a licence transfer fee for a beach hut. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because part of the complaint would need to be considered in court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council did not provide accurate information about the licence transfer fee for a beach hut. She says the Council should waive the fee of £4271 and replace it with the £30 administration fee stated on the website. Mrs X says the charge breaches a European Directive.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. The courts decide whether there has been a breach of the law.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered information on the Council’s website and in the beach hut owners handbook. I invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Terms and conditions – Christchurch beach huts

5. The handbook explains a transfer fee must be paid when the beach hut licence is transferred to another person. In simple terms, the fee is calculated by multiplying the square meterage of the hut times an amount set annually by the Council. This is referred to on the webpage for Christchurch beach huts. The webpage for huts in the Bournemouth area refers to a £30 administration fee.

What happened

6. Mrs X owned a beach hut in Christchurch. She signed a licence agreement confirming she had read and accepted the terms, conditions and regulations set out in the handbook which forms part of the licence.
7. Mrs X sold the beach hut. The Council sent her an invoice for £4271 as the licence transfer fee. Mrs X complained and said the only information she had been given about the fee was the £30 administration fee stated on the website.
8. In response the Council explained that the £30 administration fee relates to huts in Bournemouth, not Christchurch. It referred to the handbook which explains that each transfer is subject to a transfer fee which is calculated from the square meterage and an annual fee. It said Mrs X had accepted these terms when she signed the licence agreement. It accepted there had been some delays in processing her application and it waived part of the fee. The Council also explained that it has to maximise its assets for the benefit of residents and the fee is a commercial arrangement that reflects that maximisation.
9. Mrs X has paid the fee but she complains she was not told anything about the fee other than a £30 administration fee. She says the transfer fee does not align with the European Services Directive which she states says charges must be reasonable and proportionate to the cost of the processes associated with a licensing scheme.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The transfer fee, and the way it is calculated, is explained in the handbook which forms part of the licence. The fee is based on the size of the hut multiplied by an annual fee. This will change each year and is based on the size of each hut so the fee could never be a flat fee of £30. Mrs X signed to say she accepted these terms. If she was uncertain, or thought the terms were excessive, she could have sought clarification before buying, or selling, the hut. In addition, the £30 is stated as an administration fee, not a licence fee, and it does not refer to Christchurch huts.
11. I also will not start an investigation because it would be for the courts to decide if the Council had breached the EU Directive. Mrs X may wish to take advice before taking legal action because, following the UK’s departure from the EU, it is not clear whether the directive would apply given that Mrs X paid the fee in 2021. I am not saying the Directive would not apply but it may be something Mrs X should check before spending money on legal action.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the courts decide if there has been a breach of EU law.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman