Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council reviewed a policy. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council reviewed its policy on Community Assets. He said the Council did not consult with relevant charities or organisations as part of the policy review despite it stating it had. He also said the Council’s Executive Committee did not consider the reviewed policy, despite the Council stating it would. Mr X said the Council would not investigate his complaint as it had previously been considered by the Ombudsman.
2. Mr X wants the Council to complete further consultation on the policy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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. 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 finalise that policy following consideration by the Council’s Executive Committee. Following our decision, Mr X complained further. He said the Council had not reviewed the policy as it stated it would.
7. In the Council’s response to Mr X it said it reviewed the policy in line with its normal working practices and that it considered relevant information about Community Asset transfers when it reviewed the policy. It said it had unsuccessfully tried to contact a voluntary agency about the policy.
8. It also explained that despite it initially intending to take the policy to the Executive Committee, that was not necessary as it was a revision to an existing policy. It decided single member approval was the most effective route for approval.
9. Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate this complaint. That is because 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. It is not under a statutory duty to consult. The Council is entitled to changes its view on whether the policy needed to go to Executive Committee. Additionally, there is nothing worthwhile to be achieved by further investigation.
10. Although the Council did not consider Mr X’s complaint through its complaint procedure, it did respond to his questions about the policy review. We will not investigate how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint as it is not a good use of public resource to investigate complaint procedures, where we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman