Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council consulted on possible changes to the tenure arrangements at a caravan site. There is not evidence of fault by the Council causing the complainant a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to provide sufficient costing/commercial details as part of a consultation on possible changes to the way the Council manages tenures of a caravan site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
4. And we do not start an investigation if we decide the impact of the alleged fault a person complains about is not so significant that we should investigate. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Ms X’s representative and the Council,
• information about the consultation on the Council’s website,
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I can appreciate why Ms X wanted more detail on the financial implications of the alternative tenure options before she responded to the consultation. But it is not our role to overrule or tell the Council how to operate its services.
7. The Council has explained the purpose of this high-level/strategic consultation was to understand the level of support for a change in the way it manages the tenures of the site, and was not asking people to commit to a particular option/model. It says all the options will need refining to include further detail of the financial implications, and any future changes will involve further engagement and consultation with current owners. The Council also explained during the complaints process that whichever model is chosen, it is likely that rental levels would be benchmarked against comparable sites in the area.
8. The survey also included a section for general comments to be made, so it was open to Ms X to highlight her concerns about the methodology as part of the consultation process. She will also be able to participate in the future engagement and consultation which the Council has said will be undertaken.
9. As such, I find there is not enough evidence of fault or of significant injustice to Ms X to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation into the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman