Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to ban Mr X from trading at the Council’s street markets. It is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a street trader, and he said the Council were wrong to ban him from trading at a street market. He also said it did not give him a proper chance to appeal its decision. Mr X said this has had an impact on him financially.

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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Following an incident at a street market, the Council banned Mr X meaning he was not able to trade at the Council’s street markets for two years. Mr X said he disagreed with the version of events the Council took into consideration.
7. The Council explained it had considered information Mr X sent him and decided not to review its earlier decision, because Mr X had not sent him new information. Mr X then complained, and the Council wrote back to Mr X explaining it had reviewed its records, spoke to those people affected, and considered its policy. It decided not to reconsider its decision.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
9. Given the Council’s explanations here, we will not investigate this matter, because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision making. On the information I have seen, its decision to ban Mr X does not seem wholly unreasonable either.
10. In any case, the Council have already considered all of Mr X’s representations and investigated his complaint at both stages of its complaint procedures. We will not investigate because it is unlikely we could add anything to these investigations and therefore there is no worthwhile outcome we can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman