Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to ensure a sports club completed works set out in its application for funding. This is because the injustice Mr X claims is the result of the sports club’s actions rather than those of the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council awarded funding to a sports club but failed to ensure the club used it for the purpose it stated in its application. He says that he and other residents have suffered a loss of amenity as a result of the club not completing the works stated and he believes the Council has a responsibility to ensure it does.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. This complaint stems from Mr X’s belief that the Council is responsible for ensuring the club completes the work detailed in its funding application. But the Council is not responsible for the club’s actions; it has no direct powers over the club and we could not therefore say it must force it to complete the work.
5. The Council awarded a relatively small amount of money to the club and the impact of its funding decision, in the event the work is not complete and the money is therefore deemed wasted, lies in the cost of its award. The Council confirms the money came from developers as part of agreements they entered into with the Council in respect of major development in the District, rather than from taxpayers, so any impact of this on Mr X and the other residents is neither direct nor significant enough to warrant investigation.
6. The main injustice Mr X claims results from the club’s delay in completing the works and this is not something we could hold the Council responsible for.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Mr X claims is not the result of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman