Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to enter into a licencing agreement with a local Business Improvement District (BID) for the management of two noticeboards. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. We cannot investigate the actions of the BID.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to enter into a licencing agreement with a Business Improvement District (BID) for it to manage and maintain two Council-owned noticeboards. He says he was not consulted and the agreement carries risks for the BID. He wants the Council to cancel the licencing agreement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as Business Improvement Districts. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint response, the Council said it did not have the funds to maintain or improve the notice boards. It said without the agreement, the boards would fall into disrepair and eventually be removed. It said the management and improvement of local signage was a legitimate task for the BID to undertake.
7. It said it had chosen a licencing arrangement to ensure it maintained oversight of public safety and, in the event that the BID ceased to exist, responsibility for the land and noticeboards would automatically revert back to the Council.
8. It said it was the BID’s decision to enter into the licencing agreement and any risk associated with this decision was for the BID to consider as part of its decision making.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has appropriately explained its decision and reasons for choosing a licencing arrangement to Mr X. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision to warrant an investigation.
10. It was the BID’s decision to enter into the agreement. We cannot investigate the decision making or actions of the BID.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation. We cannot investigate the actions of the Business Improvement District.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman