Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to increase beach hut service charges. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council increased the service charge for beach huts without properly informing her. She also said the Council operated a two-tier charging system because non-locals were required to pay a 30% increase in service charge rather than the 10% local increase.
2. Mrs X also said the increase was unreasonable and had a disproportionate impact because of her disabilities. She wants the Council to apologise and to set her service charge at the same level as local beach hut owners.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council explained to Mrs X that the increase was discussed with the New Forest Beach Hut Owners Association (the Association), which represented a significant percentage of beach hut owners. It said it does not communicate proposed increases with individual owners. It provided the Association with a letter setting out the new fees.
7. The Council acknowledged Mrs X was not a member of the Association but said, as a beach hut owner for 23 years, she was aware of the yearly service charge increase. The Council also explained the difference between charges for local and non-local residents and said the higher increase for non-residents was due to local residents additional contributions through council tax.
8. The Council reviewed the Equality Act 2010 in relation to Mrs X’s complaint. It said that being a non-resident was not a protected characteristic under the Act and therefore did not apply. The Council explained to Mrs X that the increased service charge did not disproportionately impact people with protected characteristics.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council engaged with the Association about the increases in service charge, it also set out the reasons for the increase and explained to Mrs X why the charge increase was higher for non-residents. It explained being a non-resident was not a protected characteristic. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman