Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council reviewed a policy. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Nor would further investigation lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of Ms Y. He says the Council:
• failed to consult with relevant charities or organisations as part of its review of its Community Asset policy despite it stating it would do so; and
• failed to present the reviewed policy to the Council’s Executive Committee for consideration despite stating it would.

Mr X says the Council refused to investigate this complaint as the Ombudsman has already considered the substantive issues.

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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We previously investigated a complaint made by Mr X about the Council’s Community Asset Transfer policy. In response to that investigation, the Council told us that following consultation, it had reviewed its policy. It said it intended to approve the policy following consideration by the Council’s Executive Committee.
6. Following our decision, Mr X complained the Council did not review the policy as it said it would.
7. In its response to Mr X, the Council advised it reviewed the policy in line with its normal working practices and considered relevant information about Community Asset transfers. It said it tried to contact a voluntary agency about the policy, but this was unsuccessful.
8. The Council also explained that at first it intended to take the policy to the Executive Committee. However, this was not necessary because it was a revision to an existing policy. The Council decided approval by a Councillor was the most effective route.
9. I understand Mr X is dissatisfied with the way the Council reviewed the policy. However, we will not investigate this complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reviewed the policy to justify our involvement. The Council has reviewed the policy in line with its internal processes. There is no statutory duty for it to consult voluntary organisations. It is entitled to change its view on whether the policy needed to go to Executive Committee. Also we do not consider further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement; and
• Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman