Summary: Mr C complains about how the Council considered his bid to operate a surf school. I have completed my investigation on the basis that there was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains that the Council is at fault in how it considered his bid to operate a surf school. Mr C says the Council held his bid to a higher standard to other similar businesses in the area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because a complainant disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr C; and
• considered documents provided by the Council; and
• communicated with Mr C about his complaint.
5. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council invited tenders for licences to operate businesses from Council owned land. The Council’s tender application states that tenders would be assessed by the following matrix:
• Annual rent bid – 40%
• Quality of proposed commercial concession – 60%
7. The Council’s application for the tender stated additional weighting would be given to proposals that benefit the community, provide a good strategic fit with existing businesses and which can demonstrate a good health & safety record and environmental sustainability. The tender asked for applicants to submit as much information as possible regarding these points.
8. The tender application also declared the Council is not obliged to accept the highest nor any bid received.
9. Mr C submitted a bid to operate a surf school. However, the bid was rejected leading to Mr C complaining to the Ombudsman.
10. The Ombudsman’s investigation found fault with how the Council had considered Mr C’s bid, as it had failed to assess the bid against the criteria stated in the tender application. Therefore, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council reassess Mr C’s bid.
11. In January 2019, the Council carried out a new assessment of Mr C’s bid, using officers who had not been involved in the previous assessment. The Council subsequently wrote to Mr C to explain that his bid had not been successful.
12. The Council outlined how they had assessed Mr C’s bid against the following criteria:
• Health & safety
• Experience
• Investment in business
• Sustainability.
13. Regarding health and safety, the Council said that Mr C had not provided satisfactory evidence, that he had had suitable coaching qualifications and first aid training. It also said that he had failed to provide evidence that he had undertaken risk assessments, or evidence that he had professional accreditation or insurance in place.
14. The Council also said that Mr C had not evidenced his previous experience in surf coaching, as he had failed to provide qualifications or explained how long he had been delivering coaching.
15. The Council said that Mr C’s bid failed to detail how it would finance the significant amount of investment needed to run a surf school.
16. Finally, regarding sustainability, the Council raised a number of points which included the bid lacking sufficient financial details, and that it did not contain enough information on how he would dispose of waste.
17. In Mr C’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he said that the Council’s reasons for refusing his bid do not tally with the previous reasons, and that other surf schools in the area do not have the same accreditation the Council suggested he needed.
18. In response to Mr C’s claim that other surf schools in the area do not have the same accreditation, the Council said it does not specify what criteria surf schools should have, just that it expects accreditation from a relevant professional body.
19. During my investigation, I have looked at two schools in the area which Mr C mentioned as not having accreditation and can confirm that either the surf school or the owners are listed on different surf associations as having accreditation.

Back to top

Analysis

20. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the Council should have accepted Mr C’s bid. Rather, we look at whether there was fault by the Council in how it reached its decision.
21. During the Ombudsman’s previous investigation, it was found that the Council had considered irrelevant information when assessing Mr C’s bid. Subsequently, officer’s independent to the previous assessment carried out a fresh assessment.
22. The assessors used their professional judgement when carrying out this assessment and did so in accordance with the criteria in the tender application. I have not seen any evidence there was fault in how Mr C’s bid was assessed.
23. Mr C complains that other similar businesses are allowed to operate without accreditation, I have not seen any evidence of this. However, I should add that this was not the only criteria that led to the Council rejecting his bid.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have concluded my investigation with no finding of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman