Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse to allow the complainant to trade on its markets. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council is treating him unfairly by refusing to allow him to trade on its markets.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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. The Council barred Mr X from trading from its markets because he used foul language towards a Council Officer.
6. The Council’s market rules state that gross misconduct includes:

“Violent of threatening behaviour – including the use of foul, abusive or threatening language towards a member of the public, Council staff or fellow traders.”

7. Mr X acknowledges he used foul language during a conversation with a Council Officer. He complains the Council is treating him unfairly.
8. The Council confirms Mr X signed a copy of the market rules in 2019. In 2020 he was suspended from the market because of swearing at an Officer. As Mr X used bad language to an Officer again, the Council has decided to ban him from trading on the market on a permanent basis.
9. Mr X appealed against the decision and a senior Officer considered the appeal. The Officer upheld the decision to ban Mr X from the market because he was aware of the rules and had breached them for the second time.
10. I understand Mr X believes this is unfair because on the second occasion he did not swear at the Officer, rather he used bad language during his conversation with the Officer. However, the Council is aware of the circumstances of when, how, and what bad language was used. It has applied its policy. It considered Mr X’s appeal and decided to uphold its original decision. As there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council applied its policy, I cannot question the merits of the decision it made.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided not to allow Mr X to trade on its markets.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman