Birmingham City Council (19 016 686)

Category : Other Categories > Commercial and contracts

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 21 Feb 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint of discrimination and fraud against his organisation, unfair practices in the Council’s tender procedures and that its staff acted unprofessionally. This is because it was not unreasonable to expect him to go to court to seek a remedy for the financial loss he has claimed.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained of discrimination and fraud by the Council with others against his organisation, unfair practices in the Council’s tender procedures and also that its staff acted unprofessionally. Mr B told us the Council has caused financial loss to his organisation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered the information Mr B provided, the Council’s most recent responses to his complaints and Mr B’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr B told us one of the issues he raised with the Council was he had provided evidence certain council officers had a very personal relationship with certain people or organisations to whom it had awarded tenders. He says the Council has covered this up and ignores him when he raises concerns. Mr B says the Council has acted unfairly against his organisation during a procurement process.
  2. In March 2018 Mr B sent a letter to the Council outlining his concerns relating to a tendering process which started early in 2017. Mr B said he had not started legal proceedings. But he said he may be left with no further alternative because the Council’s procurement service had ignored the points he and others had raised.
  3. The Council replied in April 2018. It said it had provided an in depth breakdown of the procurement to him and his legal representative in August 2017. The Council said it had carried out rigorous investigation of his allegations and it was satisfied with the outcomes.
  4. In October 2018 the Council replied to an email from Mr B in which he explained why he did not consider the Council had resolved his concerns. In its reply the Council said it considered it had addressed the matters he had raised in its previous communications with him. The Council said it did not intend to engage in further correspondence about the issues.
  5. Mr B first complained to us about similar issues in September 2018. Mr B’s complaint to us would be late if he took more than 12 months to complain to us about what happened. Mr B told us the delay in making his current complaint was caused by having to wait for the Council’s final response. I have decided not to exercise discretion to investigate this complaint because it was not unreasonable to expect Mr B to go to court to seek a remedy for the financial loss he has claimed. He is seeking compensation from the Council. A court of law was the appropriate body to decide whether the Council was liable for Mr B’s claimed financial loss. We would not investigate a complaint from Mr B about the Council’s complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issue which led to his complaint.
  6. Mr B says he cannot take "whistle blowing" matters to court as it is not a civil matter. If he believes there may have been criminal behaviour by the Council’s officers, this would be a matter for the police.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it was not unreasonable to expect the complainant to go to court to seek a remedy for the financial loss he has claimed.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings