Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s bidding process for a concession opportunity. The Council agreed a suitable remedy which removes the need for an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not have a fair and transparent bidding process for a concession opportunity at a local visitor centre. Mr X also complains about how the Council handled his complaint.
2. Mr X says this denied him the opportunity to understand how the decision was made. Mr X says the lack of feedback disadvantaged him when preparing for later concession opportunities.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X saw an opportunity to bid for a concession opportunity at a local visitor centre in summer 2025. He asked the Council for further details about the evaluation criteria and submitted a bid. Mr X’s bid was not chosen so Mr X asked the Council about how it had made its decision. Mr X complained to the Council.
8. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint but did not properly consider the LGSCO Principles of Good Administrative Practice. The Council did not publish the procedure for considering concession opportunities on its Street Food Corner Trader website. The Council did not provide sufficient information to potential bidders regarding the information it needed to provide when bidding for this opportunity. The Council did not publish the full evaluation criteria which were used to evaluate the bids it received. The Council did not keep records of the meeting at which the decision was taken about the concession opportunity.
9. Mr X says the lack of transparency and feedback disadvantaged him when preparing for later concession opportunities, so he has missed out on trade. I cannot conclude that Mr X would have won the contract if the Council had a more transparent procedure in place. However, I recognise the uncertainty caused by the faults identified.
10. I invited the Council to provide a remedy to Mr X and take action to ensure future bidding opportunities are conducted in line with the LGSCO Principles of Good Administrative Practice. The Council has agreed to our proposal. This has removed the need for us to investigate this complaint.
11. Mr X also complains about how the Council handled his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

12. The Council has agreed to:
• Write a Street Food Corner Trader procedure which reflects good administrative practice and publish this on its website.
• Provide training to relevant staff on the revised Street Food Corner Trader procedure and LGSCO Principles of Good Administrative Practice.
• Apologise to Mr X and make him a symbolic payment for distress, time and trouble.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s bidding process for a concession opportunity. This is because the Council agreed a suitable remedy which removes the need for an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman