Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s treatment of a flying club of which he is a member. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we will find evidence of fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s treatment of a flying club of which he is a member following the implementation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Council and the airfield owners. He says as a result of the Council’s action/inaction, and officer negligence and malpractice, the club can no longer operate from the airfield.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X. I gave him the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X is a member of a flying club which operated from an airfield in the Council’s area until it was evicted in February 2020.
6. Mr X says the airfield had been under the threat of closure for some time with the owners of the site wanting to stop all aviation activities and redevelop the site for housing. A long running legal dispute between the airfield owners and its tenants, including Mr X’s club, resulted in the courts deciding that the landlord did not need to provide any tenancies. The club’s tenancy was not renewed when it came to an end.
7. Keen to maintain aviation activity at the site, the Council entered into discussions with the airfield owners which resulted in a MOU between the parties. However, this agreement did not cover Mr X’s club and, dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of matters and that it had signed a MOU which excluded his club, Mr X made a formal complaint.
8. In response the Council explained the owners had made clear they would not offer a tenancy to the club because their relationship had broken down irretrievably. The Council said it had suggested mediation between the club and owners and made efforts to try and overcome the broken relationship but as the owners eschewed its efforts it was then left with a dilemma. It said it could either agree to the MOU knowing that the owners would be unlikely to offer a lease to Mr X’s club but preserving wider aviation activities for other users or it could refuse to sign the MOU with the likely outcome of the immediate closure of all aviation activity at the airfield. Having taken legal and professional advice it decided on the former.
9. The Council also explained that the MOU itself would be an important document to show its good faith and intent should it decide in the future to make a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) for the site. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint nor did it accept his criticism of the conduct of officers involved in the matter.
10. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

11. Given the legal action between the club and the airfield owners it is clear their relationship had broken down. The owners were under no obligation to grant the club a new tenancy and the Council had no powers to force them to do so. The Council took legal and professional advice and decided on a course of action which resulted in the MOU. I understand Mr X is disappointed that his club was excluded from the MOU but the Council has explained why it took the decisions it did and it is not our role to review their merits.
12. Mr X says he wants the Council to accept there have been numerous breaches of the MOU by the owners and for it to progress to the CPO so club members can return to flying at the airfield again. However, this is not a remedy the Ombudsman can obtain and it will be for the Council to decide if and when to take this course of action.
13. In Mr X’s response to my draft decision, he has reiterated, as has already been noted, that his complaint covers officer negligence and malpractice. He has set out his requirements, but I have explained why we will not investigate his complaint.
14. My reading of the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint is that his club and the business it is associated with are not covered by the MOU. While I note Mr X says the Council did not clarify this for him when he requested it do so, the bottom line is that the airfield owners decided not to grant a new lease and they cannot be forced to do so. Mr X says the business owner associated with the club has been discriminated against but it is Mr X’s complaint and his injustice which I have considered and not that of a third party.
15. While I note Mr X is pursuing a FOI request with the Information Commissioner, and that he seeks further information from other parties involved in this case, this does not change my decision that the complaint will not be investigated by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we will find evidence of fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman