Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about corporate services because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation, and some matters fall outside the remit of the Council and are therefore outside our jurisdiction to investigate.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council was biased in its decisions to award grants to a specific project in his area and did not communicate effectively with the Local Enterprise Partnership (known as the Town Board) to ensure it had a good understanding of all applications submitted for grants.
2. Mr Y says this led to bias towards a specific project and says as a result he nearly went into receivership after he want not awarded a grant, despite having purchased properties for the purpose redevelopment using the grants. Mr Y wants the Town Board to revisit its decision after the make up of the Town Board is adjusted to reduce bias.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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.

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

5. We cannot investigate complaints about actions which are not the administrative function of a council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(1) as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y says that he bought several properties in his area on the basis he would receive grants from the Council to be able to renovate the buildings and help regenerate the area. Mr Y did not however then receive any of the grants he applied for from the Council, leaving him in financial difficulty. He says he relied on the Council’s reassurances about the grants and had he known he would not receive a grant, he would not have made the purchases. He says that another company did receive grants above any other party due to bias by the Town Board. He says consequently, his company nearly had to enter receivership.
8. The Town Board in this case is made up of a group of stakeholders in the area. It is therefore not the Council and not a body in our jurisdiction. In the law which allows us to investigate complaints about bodies in our jurisdiction it says that we cannot investigate actions which are not an administrative function of a council. In this case, this would include the decisions made by the Town Board on the grant applications. Consequently, we cannot investigate its decisions and the decisions themselves would be out of our power to investigate. Consequently, as the Council did not make the relevant decisions, we will not investigate this complaint.
9. Mr Y has complained the Council failed to properly communicate with the Town Board to ensure it had a good understanding of the applications for grants and ongoing poor communication leading to overpromising and under delivery.
10. The Council’s complaint response says that the Town Board received regular updates on the projects in the funded programme quarterly. It also said that the application process included information about the proposal of the future use of the building, benefits, affordability and the financial capability and the company history and ability to deliver projects. From this the Town Board made decisions about grants.
11. This was in line with the application process, and the Council has explained how information about the applications was collected and passed to the Town Board. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. While Mr Y may disagree with the outcome of who received grants and who did not, his disagreement with the outcome is not evidence of fault automatically. The Council used the application process and the updates to pass on information to the Town Board, for it to then make decisions. Consequently, as there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigating this complaint.
12. Mr Y has also complained that he would not have bought properties were it not for the promises made by the Council about grant funding. The Council said it explained that the buildings Mr Y had purchased would be eligible to apply for grants but made no guarantees about grant funding. While Mr Y may have believed he would receive funding, the Council was not able to guarantee this funding as it did not make decisions on grant applications. It has explained how it communicated this to Mr Y, in emails labelled without prejudice and explaining the need for Mr Y to apply to have his project considered by the Town Board. Mr Y chose to purchase the properties at his own risk. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s correspondence about the grants to warrant investigation.
13. Further, Mr Y wants the Town Board to revisit its decision after the membership of the Town Board is adjusted to reduce bias. This is not an outcome we can recommend. Consequently, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking and we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and some matters fall outside the remit of the Council and are therefore outside our jurisdiction to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman