Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about poor services provided by a business improvement district company. This is because the complaint is late, refers to court action and does not concern an administrative function of the Council. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Business Improvement District (BID) she is part of and pays for under the BID levy failed to provide services it promised. When Mrs X’s car was stolen in 2016 she asked the BID company which manages the services to provide CCTV footage but was later told the relevant camera was not working. She says her insurance premiums went up as a result and she has not received the services she paid for.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint where the body complained about is not responsible for the issue being raised. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I reviewed Mrs X’s complaint and assessed it in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1974 and our Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mrs X runs a business within a BID. She pays a charge for services via the BID levy which the Council collects on the BID’s behalf. The levy is payable by law and the Council cannot waive the charge.
8. The purpose of a BID is to provide additional services to those provided by the local authority. This may include additional security measures, CCTV, etc.
9. Mrs X has paid the BID levy for more than 10 years but says she has not received the services she paid for. In particular she refers to an incident in 2016 where CCTV footage showing the theft of her vehicle was not available as the camera was not working. She withheld payment of the BID levy for three years and the Council took her to court. The court confirmed the Council had acted correctly in taking action to recover the levy on the BID company’s behalf, but Mrs X wants it to refund all her payments made over more than 10 years.
10. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate any complaint about the Council's start of court action to recover Mrs X’s unpaid BID levy charges as set out at Paragraph 5.
11. Management of BID services is a matter for the BID company and this is not an administrative function of the Council. The BID company is not a body within our jurisdiction and we cannot investigate complaints made about its services. In addition to this, Mrs X’s complaint about the failure of its CCTV camera dates to more than three years before her complaint to the Ombudsman and it is therefore late.
12. While Mrs X complains her insurance premiums have increased this is likely the result of the theft of her vehicle, rather than the lack of availability of CCTV footage. And we could not reasonable say the Council must refund Mrs X’s BID levy payments over more than 10 years even if we could hold it responsible for the issues Mrs X has raised.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint refers to the Council’s court action, it is late and it does not concern an administrative function of the Council. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman