Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to spend government money on posters about Europe and the settlement scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council wrongly spent money on posters saying “proud members of the EU”. He wants the Council to remove the banners, reprimand the decision makers and pay back the wasted money.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s response. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr X complains that the Council put up banners saying “proud members of the EU”. He pays business rates and says he has an interest in how the Council spends money. He says the banners make the borough look stupid. He wants all the banners permanently removed and for the people responsible to be reprimanded. Mr X also wants the Council to pay back the money it has wasted.
5. In response to his complaint the Council explained that 70% of the borough voted to remain in the EU. It also explained that it is Council policy to oppose Brexit and to promote the benefits of remaining in the EU. The Council told Mr X that it had not used tax-payers money but had received money from central government to prepare for Brexit and promote the EU settlement scheme for EU nationals. It had used this money to promote the settlement scheme and put up posters saying “proud members of the EU”. It said it had removed the posters about being proud members of the EU during the general election.
6. Mr X says the Council did not use the money from central government to promote the settlement scheme but, instead, to promote the EU. He says he does not oppose the settlement scheme but the Council twisted the purpose for which it was given money. Mr X says he contributed to the money the Council received through his income tax. He also says the Council had to pay someone to take some of the posters down and that was funded through local taxation which he contributes to through his business rates.

Assessment

7. I appreciate Mr X may disagree with the sentiments expressed in the posters and says the Council has wasted money by using the posters to promote the EU rather than the settlement scheme. However, disagreeing with a council decision (to promote the EU) is not an injustice which requires an investigation. In addition, the amount used from Mr X’s income tax to fund the posters would be minimal and does not represent sufficient injustice to require an investigation. Similarly, the amount that could be attributed to a single tax payer for the cost of removing the posters would also be minimal.

Back to top

Final decision

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman