Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Councils market related decisions. We are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council are preventing him from selling a product on his market stall. He says another trader was allowed to move their stall near his and sell similar products. He says this has caused him to lose business and the trader should be moved.
2. Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out checks on a trader. He says the Council is not transparent in its decision making.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

4. 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

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. Mr X complained to the Council that it had allowed a trader to move too close to his stall. He said the trader was selling similar products to his and he was losing business. Further, he said the trader had not undergone the necessary checks before trading.
8. Mr X also complained the Council refused to allow him to sell a product because it said the market was saturated.
9. In its response to Mr X, the Council explained that decisions about trading at the market are made by estate management. It said all decisions are in the best interest of the market and his request to sell an already available product would not benefit the market. It said objections about other products were not deemed to cause conflict.
10. The Council said checks are carried out before the issue of any lease. It said it could not disclose information about other stall holders.
11. To aid transparency, the Council said traders would now be told about market changes, and a clearer policy would be developed.
12. It is not for us to dictate Council policy where it is not in breach of existing legislation or guidance. The Council has discretion to limit trade and decline applications for items which are already available at the market.
13. While I understand Mr X is unhappy that he cannot sell a product and the location of another trader, we cannot review the merits of this decision. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and I have seen no evidence of fault to warrant investigation.
14. The Council has made recommendations to improve the transparency of its market related decisions. The Ombudsman would be unlikely to add to the Councils own investigation and proposed actions.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, we are unlikely to find enough fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman