Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council consulted on and advertised its process to introduce on-street stalls in a shopping area near where he lives. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome he wants from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in an area where the Council has introduced trading stalls on its shopping streets. He complains the Council:
1. failed to properly consult the public and relevant bodies, including a society to which he belonged, about the stalls;
2. deliberately consulted on the matter during the summer period, coinciding with people’s holidays;
3. failed to follow the correct process when advertising the street stalls.
2. Mr X says that as a local resident he feels aggrieved his shopping area will be taken over by stalls selling cheap items. He considers they will adversely affect the area’s current atmosphere and ambience. Mr X considers the stalls will detrimentally impact existing shops and their owners.
3. Mr X wants the Council to declare its consultation null and void and to re-run it properly, not solely using online advertising.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X considers the process the Council used to create the stall pitches and licences did not include proper public consultation nor correct advertising of the licences. The Council says its only consultation duty when exercising its powers to put in the pitches was with the police. Officers say all other consultation with the public or other bodies was optional and additional. They say they extended the public consultation into the late summer and autumn to seek more responses. Officers are satisfied they followed the proper processes to create the pitches, consult on them and advertise for stallholders.
7. Even if there has been fault in the processes the Council used and followed here, we will not investigate. We do not investigate all claims or instances of council fault. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the complainant, which we call injustice. Mr X does not live near the location of the stalls. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s views on the benefits the stalls could bring to the shopping area and may be frustrated and annoyed by them when he goes there. But his upset at the presence of the stalls is not a significant personal injustice to him which would justify us investigating. Mr X is no more affected by the Council’s decision to install and licence the pitches as any other local resident who uses the shopping area and does not have a business there. We note Mr X was a member of a local society at the time of the consultation, which has since closed. Mr X’s or any other former society member’s injustice is not increased by their previous involvement with it to the extent that it warrants us investigating.
8. The complaint outcome Mr X wants is for the Council to declare its consultation null and void and to re-run it. There would be no reason for a consultation to be repeated unless the final decision on the matter being consulted on was revoked. We cannot order the Council to repeat the processes regarding the street stalls or reverse its decision to install them. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman