Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s contract with a competitor business which impacted on his business. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council’s contract with a business competitor damaged his business for which he should be compensated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about various matters relating to its contract with a competitor business which he said had led to it being able to operate at a subsidised rate and which had affected the profitability of his business.
7. The Council addressed the issues Mr X raised and told him that having reviewed the contract and its aims, it had decided to end the contract and to provide itself the service covered by the contract. As it found no fault in its handling of matters, the Council told Mr X it would not be providing compensation for the impact on his business as he had requested.
8. While I understand Mr X believes his business suffered as a result of the Council’s contract with a rival business, and that it will continue to do so now the Council will be directly providing the service, I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would be likely to find fault by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
9. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says that although his complaint referred to financial damage his business suffered, his more serious complaint is that the Council failed to follow its own rules in relation to planning and health and safety. The Council did address these concerns in its response to Mr X’s complaint and explained why there had been no change of use in planning terms and that it was monitoring safety issues and liaising with the Fire Service. I have seen no evidence to suggest fault by the Council in relation to these matters or that Mr X has been caused injustice separate to his claims about the financial impact on his business.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman