Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about brown tourism signs because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr y complained the Council wrongly rejected his application for a brown tourism sign.
2. Mr Y says he was hoping to increase visitors to his business, which previous visitors have said has been hard to find.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s website explains that it considers a tourist destination as a permanent attraction or facility that attracts, or is used by, visitors to an area and is open to the public without prior booking during its normal opening hours. Where it installs a brown tourist attraction sign, it expects the destination to be open… for a minimum period of six hours a day, 180 days a year.
7. After considering the information Mr Y provided about his business, the Council rejected his application or a brown tourism sign to be placed on roads leading to his business. This was on the basis that the business was not open without prior booking, for example for guided tours.
8. Mr Y appealed the decision, explaining that visitors were welcome to visit the business 7 days a week and it would open the business if any visitors came. The Council explained that this did not however meet the criteria, as a motorist following a brown tourism sign would expect, without prior planning, to find the destination open, which was not the case for Mr Y’s business as tours needed to be pre-booked. Mr Y then approached us.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
10. In making its decision, the organisation took account of the relevant guidance, information from Mr Y and the business’s website. The organisation followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it. As there is no evidence that the decision has been made improperly, even if Mr Y disagrees with the outcome, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman