Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint relating to the complainant’s use of a Council-run harbour. Most issues are best decided by the courts or are for the police to deal with. There is no evidence of other fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained about various issues relating to the berthing of a boat in a Council-run harbour. He says the Council has wrongly told him to remove his boat from the harbour, stolen goods from him, damaged his reputation and demanded a bribe to be able to use the harbour.

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. It says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and background information provided by the Council. Mr B commented in a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B signed an agreement relating to berthing a boat in a Council-run harbour. In doing so, he agreed to pay the required fees and be bound by the published terms and conditions.
7. Following an incident in which the Council says Mr B assaulted a member of its staff, the Council banned him from its offices and restricted his contact for 12 months. This was in line with its unacceptable behaviour policy.
8. The Council served notice on Mr B under the terms and conditions requiring him to remove his boat from the harbour. It set out in detail its reasons for the notice. The Council advised Mr B how he could ask for a review of its decision and recommended he seek independent legal advice.
9. Mr B asked the Council for a review but it upheld its original decision. It again recommended he seek independent legal advice.
10. Mr B has since said the Council stole items relating to the boat, demanded a bribe from him and published false information about him in the media.

Analysis

11. We will not look at alleged crimes by the Council. If Mr B has any evidence a crime has been committed, he should present it to the police.
12. The courts are best placed to deal with issues such as libel. These are not matters we will investigate.
13. I have seen no evidence of fault in how the Council has restricted Mr B’s contact or required him to remove his boat. If he believes the Council is in breach of some contract relating to the berthing of his boat, this would be something best decided by the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint for the reason set out in paragraphs 11 to 13.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman