Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged it misled the public over its dealings with a company which won a tender to operate an ice rink in a local park.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council misled the public over its dealings with a company which won a tender to operate an ice rink in a local park.
2. Mr X says he and other residents made an enquiry at a cabinet meeting about whether the Council had provided any financial support directly or indirectly to the company. Mr X says the Leader of the Council and its Chief Executive responded that the Council had no financial involvement in the event. Mr X then asked the Council about its financial involvement through a freedom of information request. The Council confirmed it had no financial investment in the project and had not contributed to it financially.
3. Mr X says the Council intended to contribute upwards of £100,000 towards the cost of the event but the contribution was withdrawn when it became public knowledge.
4. Mr X says the operator of the ice rink was charged only £1 for the use of the park for the 10-week duration of the event whereas the Council’s website indicates a normal fee of £785 per day.
5. Mr X says residents were misled by the Council which failed to respond openly and honestly to questions at public meetings and in response to freedom of information requests.
6. Mr X says there appears to be a hidden subsidy by the Council with little benefit to the city of Chichester. Mr X says this was tantamount to a misuse of public funds because the Council did not collect revenue on behalf of local taxpayers. Mr X says his injustice is that the citizens of Chichester were deprived of income and incurred unnecessary costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
8. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)
9. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
10. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I reviewed the complaint and background information provided by Mr X and the Council. I discussed matters with Mr X. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council and invited the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

12. In the autumn of 2018, the Council proposed the installation of a temporary ice-skating rink in a local park over the Christmas period. Due to the proximity of the Christmas period and the likelihood the event would incur expenditure or generate income over £100,000, officers forwarded the matter to the Cabinet for determination at a meeting in October 2018.
13. The Council published an ‘urgent notice’ to advise the public of the meeting and the fact that it would be partially held in private because ‘exempt’ information would be disclosed relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person or the Council.
14. However, the Cabinet did not go on to determine the matter. Before arranging for the matter to go before the Cabinet meeting, the Council had received expressions of interest but did not know the costs of the project. However, in the interim period between arranging the meeting and the date of the meeting, officers had agreed the proposed operator would take all the financial risk for the project. So, the Cabinet did not need to make a decision on the grounds of the cost of the event.
15. Mr X sees the matter differently. He says the matter was put before the Cabinet as a request for funding which was then abandoned by the Council.
16. At the Cabinet meeting, a resident asked the Leader of the Council about funding for the event. Mr X says the Leader denied the Council had any financial involvement in the event.
17. Mr X asked the Council how much the operator was paying for restitution of the park in a freedom of information request in November 2018. The Council said there was a damage deposit for reinstatement of the land and the figure would be agreed during completion of the terms and conditions of the hire of the land.
18. In January 2019, Mr X found out the operator of the ice rink paid a nominal fee of £1 to hire the space within the park for the ice rink. This was during a conversation with a neighbour who had asked the Council about the cost of the hire of the land.
19. Mr X says this was a subsidy for the operator and shows the Council did not provide honest responses to the questions he posed. He says the event was a commercial one which generated income in the region of £200,000 with little benefit to local business and none to taxpaying residents. Mr X says the Council could offer a discounted rate to the operator but offering a rate of £1 in times of financial constraints was irresponsible.

Finding

20. I am concerned a complaint that the Council misled the public is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because it concerns a matter which affects all or most inhabitants of the area rather than Mr X in a personal capacity. The Ombudsman cannot investigate such complaints.
21. Mr concern is heightened by Mr X’s description of the injustice to taxpaying residents through the Council’s alleged failings rather than a personal injustice to him in particular.
22. But the complaint can be considered more narrowly or simply as Mr X being concerned about dishonest answers to his enquiries. If interpreted in this way, then I do not find fault by the Council.
23. The Leader of the Council’s responded in the negative to a question whether the Council had any financial involvement in the event directly or indirectly in October 2018. This is because the Leader believed the operator would meet the costs of the event. I do not consider the response was dishonest because the Leader was not involved in the minutiae of hire agreement and gave an answer based on his understanding of matters at the time. That the Council later entered into an agreement with the operator involving a discount on the hire rate for the land was a matter for officers to determine and does not now mean the Leader’s response was dishonest.
24. I do not find the response to Mr X’s freedom of information request was dishonest. Mr X enquired about the cost of restoring the land following the event and did not enquire about the hire rate offered to the operator. It is evident the Council provided an answer on the latter point to another resident.
25. I iterate that Mr X’s concerns about the cost of the event and the lack of benefit to the city or taxpayers cannot be considered by the Ombudsman.

Final decision

26. I closed this complaint because I did not find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman