Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a town centre redevelopment project and its response to Mr X’s complaint about it. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault sufficient to warrant an investigation or that Mr X has suffered any significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a town centre redevelopment project. He says he is concerned about whether the Council has spent his money as a rate payer wisely and with due diligence.

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 may decide not to continue with 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council has responded to Mr X’s complaint about matters relating to a town centre redevelopment scheme with which he has been concerned. Mr X may not agree with the scheme and the changes it will bring but it is not our role to review the merits of decisions taken by councils.
7. Mr X has complained as a rate payer and questions whether rate payers’ money has been wisely spent but any injustice caused to him with regard to this matter falls under the restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 because Mr X’s claimed injustice is the same for all or most of the people living in the area and paying rates.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault sufficient to warrant an investigation or that Mr X has suffered any significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman