Summary: We will not investigate this complaint arising from a lease a body had with the Council. The body no longer exists so we could not provide any worthwhile outcome. Any issue with the terms of the lease would have been best decided by the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, was a trustee of a body (the Body) which leased property from the Council. Mr B says the Council:

• failed to correctly deal with its responsibility under the terms of the lease;
• breached the terms of the lease;
• misinformed a committee;
• failed to keep records of discussion; and
• failed to inform the trustees of its intended actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome;
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants;
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint; or
• the complaint does not meet other tests set out in our Assessment Code. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr B, which included the Council’s responses to him. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

Final decision

4. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. The central issue in the complaint is the interpretation of the lease between the Body and the Council. I understand the trustees surrendered the lease and the Body itself no longer exists.
5. The lease was a legal agreement between the Body and the Council. The courts would have been best placed to deal with any dispute about the terms of the lease. Further, as the Body no longer exists, we could not provide any worthwhile outcome regarding any other issues.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman