Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision-making on street lighting because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s decision-making on street lighting and the management of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract.
2. Mr Y complains about false statements being published by the Council. He says this was done to discredit him.
3. Mr Y also complains about complaint handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y complained to the Council about its decision-making on street lighting. Mr Y has previously complained to the Ombudsman about the same matter and a decision was issued following an investigation. We will not consider the same matters again as part of this complaint.
8. Mr Y complained to the Council about its handling of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract. The Council explained the offer was made to mitigate risk, and that the cost of managing the risk exceeds to value of the offer. The Council is entitled to decide how it manages financial contracts and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
9. Mr Y complained to the Council about false statements being made in briefing papers submitted to Cabinet in support of a new lighting policy. The Council says the statement was dealt with in accordance with procedural rules. Minutes from the cabinet meeting show that the new policy was agreed, and various statements were considered including Mr Y’s. The Council did acknowledge that a phrase used by one Councillor was unfortunate and explained a better phrase. We are unlikely to add to the Council’s response and therefore will not investigate this part of the complaint.
10. If Mr Y feels that a Councillor has breached the Code of Conduct, he can complain to the Monitoring Officer.
11. Mr Y has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman