Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council requiring a community group to leave Council-owned premises. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council in how decided to ask the group to leave. If the group believes it has a legal right to remain, the courts are best placed to determine the issue.

The complaint

1. The complainant is made by a community group which I refer to here as ‘the Group’. It says the Council was wrong to ask it to leave premises it had been using for several years for various community projects. In summary, the Group says it wants us to require the Council to revoke the ‘eviction’ from the Council-owned premises, pay financial compensation and restore the situation to how it was previously.
2. The Group is also unhappy with how the Council dealt with its complaints about being required to leave the premises.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
4. 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 we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained;
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

5. We do not provide a right of appeal against a council’s decision. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. It is not a good use of public finds to investigate how a council dealt about with a complaint where we decide not to investigate the central issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered what the Group said in its complaint which included extensive correspondence it had with the Council. The Group commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Group had used Council-owned premises for several years. The Council became unhappy with various issues, including health and safety matters, which it raised with the Group. The Council was not satisfied with the Group’s responses and eventually decided it could no longer use the premises.
9. The Group disputes the Council’s view of the issues that concerned the Council. However, I do not consider it is our role to decide which view is correct. I am satisfied the Council explained its position to the Group and was entitled to tell it to leave the premises.
10. The Council says the Group had no lease or licence to use the premises and so it could simply require it to leave. Although it says this is not a central issue in its complaint, the Group disputes the Council’s view and says it has a contract with the Council under English law.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I have decided we will not investigate the Council’s decision to tell the Group to leave the premises. This is because we are unlikely to find fault that affected that decision. In the absence of fault, we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision.
12. Given this, we will not investigate how the Council dealt with the Group’s complaints about the same issues.
13. Notwithstanding the above, should the Group believe the Council has breached some contract or other legal agreement with the Council, the courts would be best placed to deal with the issue. This is not something we could determine.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman