Summary: Mr X complains about the scrutiny given to various versions of a business case relating to the development of a car park by the Council. He is concerned about the financial implication for current and future local taxpayers because of the decision to approve the business case. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint because the injustice claimed is one that affects all or most of the people in the Council’s area.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the scrutiny given to various versions of a business case relating to the development of a car park by the Council. Mr X is extremely concerned about the financial implications for current and future local taxpayers because of the Council’s decision to approve the business case.

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 something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the documents Mr X submitted, including his complaint correspondence with the Council and its responses. I also discussed his complaint with him.
5. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and the Council and I invited them to comment on it.

Back to top

What I found

6. In March 2016, a report was presented to a Council committee setting out the business case for the development of a town centre car park to provide more parking capacity. A revised version of the report was then considered by the Council’s cabinet later that year.
7. A third version of the business case came before the Council’s cabinet again in October 2018. Members voted in favour and therefore approved it.
8. Mr X says projections in the business case are unrealistic and impose too great a burden on local taxpayers. He puts this in the context of the Council’s medium-term financial forecasts. He also questions why some of the assumptions – such as the rate of inflation in future years and the likely occupancy of the car park – appear to have been changed in a way which is very favourable to the Council’s case.
9. Mr X says the reality of the business case is local taxpayers will be funding a deficit for over three decades as the car park will deliver no overall profit until then.

Back to top

Analysis

10. Mr X’s case relies entirely on the effect the scheme will have on him and other local taxpayers, now and in the future.
11. The law says the Ombudsman cannot investigate decisions taken by the Council which affect all or most of the people in its area.
12. I consider this is such a case. Mr X strongly disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve the business case for the car park development. However, the financial cost and implications affect everyone in the Council’s area rather than him alone.
13. Mr X’s can raise his concerns with the Council’s auditors if he feels the business case is fundamentally flawed.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because the injustice he claims affects all or most of the people in the Council’s area.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman