Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to offer Mr X a new kiosk to run his business from following redevelopment of a market. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that despite having run his business from a local market for many years, following its redevelopment plans the Council has refused to offer him a new position. He says the Council dismissed his application saying he did not meet the criteria for the new market system and that it appears it intentionally reduced his points and gave him a low score to ensure he did not qualify.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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)
3. 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 and the Council, including its response to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. As part of its redevelopment of a local market area, the Council ran an Expressions of Interest process whereby those wanting a kiosk following the redevelopment could apply for one. The Council explained to Mr X that existing tenants were not guaranteed a position in the new kiosk facilities and that set criteria would apply in assessing the applications.
7. Unfortunately, Mr X’s application was unsuccessful. He complained to the Council about this, stating he had not been offered alternative opportunities nor was he able to store his equipment at the market until he found new premises.
8. The Council responded to explain its process and said he had been offered alternative locations, but he had turned these down as unsuitable. It said there was no room for him to store his equipment at present but that it would notify him when any became available. It said it had no obligation to pay him compensation because the type of lease he had had did not cover this. The Council offered Mr X a meeting so that it could go through his application with him and explain why it had not met the criteria and at the meeting he would be offered alternative trading options.
9. While the Council’s decision on Mr X’s application was clearly very disappointing for him, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The Council followed its procedure and the set criteria in place for assessing kiosk applications and there is no evidence to suggest fault affected its decision not to award Mr X a position.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman