Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has treated him. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had discriminated against him for a prolonged period. He said it did not respond to his complaints objectively. He said most recently the Council had refused to reduce the rent on his market stall following a decline in business. He said the Council had agreed reductions for other traders in similar circumstances. Mr X believes the Council is discriminating against him. He said its refusal to agree the rent the reduction had affected his business and his mental health. Mr X wants the Council to compensate him for this and ensure it provides timely responses to complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X’s complaint relates to the behaviour of the Council over several years. We will not investigate the early parts of Mr X’s complaint. That is because we expect a person to complain to the Ombudsman within twelve months of becoming aware of a matter. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman at the start of 2025; therefore, we will only consider his complaint about the Council from the start of 2024.
9. Mr X asked the Council to consider a reduction in his market stall rent. Mr X made his request because of declining sales and low footfall in the market; he also cited family illness. The Council considered this request at its market management meeting. The Council did not agree to the reduction. The Council noted Mr X had not taken advantage of free advertising to raise the profile of his stall and increase footfall. It also did not consider the products sold at the stall a key anchor for the market, as they could be bought elsewhere in the town. It said Mr X had not provided evidence to support the reduction. It noted where it had agreed rent reductions for other traders there were exceptional circumstances surrounding those decisions. It decided these did not apply to Mr X’s request.
10. The Council contacted Mr X with its decision. Over the next 14 months there were ongoing email exchanges between Mr X and the Council. He remained unhappy with its decision to refuse the reduction. He said the Council had treated other traders differently. The Council confirmed this was not the case.
11. In March 2025, Mr X contacted the Ombudsman as he was unhappy with how the Council had dealt with him. He said it was discriminating against him. We passed the complaint back to the Council as it had not provided a formal response.
12. In its complaint response, the Council explained its process for deciding market rent reductions. It said that any decisions were in the overall interest of the market. It said every request for a reduction was different; it said the evidence provided by Mr X did not justify a rent reduction. It said it had regularly communicated with Mr X and could find no evidence of unfair or inequitable treatment.
13. 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.
14. The Council has followed its internal process for considering market reductions; it has considered information presented by Mr X over the past 15 months but decided the evidence does not justify a reduction. It has set out its reasons for this. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman