Summary: Mr C said the Council discriminated against him when in early 2023 it raised his beach hut ground rent. He says the difference between owners’ and renters’ fees increase was discriminatory. The Council was not at fault for how it decided to increase the beach hut prices for owners and renters by 20% and 10 % respectively.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr C, says
• the Council’s differential between owners’ and renters’ fees increase was discriminatory; and
• the 20% price increase for his grounds licence was unreasonable.
2. He says the Council should implement the same price increase regardless of whether the huts are rented or privately owned.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did. We have limited resources and must investigate complaints in a proportionate manner, focusing on general themes and issues, rather than providing a response to every individual issue raised in a complaint.
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

6. I spoke to Mr C. I considered the Council’s responses to his complaints and the relevant law and regulations.
7. Mr C and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Discrimination

8. The Equalities Act 2010 says it is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of protected characteristics such as age, sex, sexual orientation, disability, religion or race.

Beach huts

9. The Council may provide beach huts under section 232 of the Public Health Act 1936. The law neither requires the Council to provide beach huts, nor does it state that if it does it must do so in a particular way. 
10. Councils which provide commercial services can provide them at a profit through a service company.
11. Councils are elected bodies which have a democratic mandate to make decisions. Unless they are unlawful, the Ombudsman will not find fault with their decisions.

Background

12. The Council’s area is on the south coast. It has 35 beach huts. Some of them belong to the Council and are rented, some have been bought and are owned by the members of the public.

What happened

13. In November 2022 the Council’s Policy and Resources Committee considered the proposed new fees for the Council’s commercial services for 2023-2024. This included a 20% increase in ground fees for those who own their huts, and a 10% increase in rental fees for the huts the Council owns.
14. The Council agreed to begin the consultation period for the new prices and said it would consider it again in February 2023. The Committee met early in the month and agreed to present the new budget proposal to the Full Council.
15. Two weeks later the Full Council approved the new fees for 2023-2024 after discussing some of the fees and making amendments it considered necessary.
16. In mid-March 2023 the Council announced the price increases for annual rents and ground rents for those who rent their huts and those who own them respectively.
17. Between March and April 2023 Mr C wrote to the Council and voiced his concerns about the different rate of price increase for him as an owner as opposed to the renters. He also asked the Council to explain how it decided what the increases should be. The Council told Mr C that it carried out a competitor analysis and later added that in deciding the process the Council also considered market demand and the Council’s need to increase its income so that it can meet its medium-term financial plan.
18. Mr C was unhappy about the Council’s response as he felt the Council gave him different information each time and he questioned the validity of its price increase. This is why he asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint.

Analysis

19. Mr C said he felt discriminated against by the Council decision to increase his ground rent by 20% and an annual licence for the huts it owns only by 10%.
20. However, considering the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 the Council’s decision is not discriminatory. The Equality Act applies where someone is claiming different treatment because of a protected characteristic. In this case, Mr C is unhappy at renters being treated differently to owners, which is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
21. Mr C said the Council did not properly consider the price rise as this was not discussed during the Full Council meeting. The Council’s meeting minutes show the Councillors were presented with all the proposed prices and were entitled to determine for themselves how to discuss these. We understand that Mr C also disagrees with the Council’s market comparison. However, raising the hut owners’ ground licence by a different rate to the annual licence is a decision the democratically elected Council is entitled to take. There was no fault in how the Council decided to accept all the proposed price rises. We cannot therefore comment on the merits of the decision the Council made.

Back to top

Final decision

22. There was no fault in how the Council decided to increase the beach hut prices for owners and renters by 20% and 10 % respectively. Our investigation is now complete.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman