Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Business Improvement District. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. There is also another body better placed to deal with this complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had not responded to his concerns about the actions of a Business Improvement District (BID). He said the BID was completing tasks that were the responsibility of the Council such as street cleaning. He said the BID was not enhancing the business area and was only interested in arranging events. He wants the management of the BID dismissed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council had not responded to his concerns about the BID. The Council responded to his questions in July 2023 and August 2023. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Mr X said he had also made freedom of information requests to the Council about the BID. If he has any complaints about how the Council has dealt with his freedom of information requests, it is reasonable for him to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
8. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint the BID is providing services the Council is responsible for. The Council has confirmed any street cleaning completed by the BID is in addition to the Council’s services. There is no restriction on the BID providing services in addition to those provided by the Council (Business Improvement Districts Guidance and Best Practice 2015). There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
9. We have previously investigated Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s oversight of the BID’s operations and spending. We said we would not investigate. That is because the Council cannot direct the BID how to spend its money. The BID is a limited company, and it is for the BID to use the funding in line with its business plan. If Mr X believes the BID is misusing its money, he can complain to the Insolvency Service. We will not consider this complaint further. It is invalid as we have previously considered it. The matters complained of are best dealt with a different body.
10. Mr X wants the management of the BID removed. That is not an outcome we can achieve.

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. There is also another body better placed to consider his concerns about the Business Improvement District.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman