Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the way the Council reached decisions regarding changes to a lease for commercial premises it owns. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains about the way the Council decided to make changes to a lease for commercial premises it owns. She says there was a conflict of interest concerning the decision to treat the matter as urgent, avoiding further scrutiny of the proposal, and she is unhappy there was no public consultation about it. She also considers the decision to treat the matter as urgent was improperly and unfairly made as it focused too much on financial gain.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council has provided a full response to the issues Mrs X raised and it is unlikely we could add to its response. I appreciate Mrs X does not accept what the Council has said but this does not show fault in its handling of the matter.
5. The Council has explained that the decision on the lease was separate from the decision on the planning application and there was therefore no conflict of interest in deciding to treat the matter as urgent. The two processes are entirely separate and have different considerations. So while Mrs X was hoping the decision on the lease may provide a further way to stop the development going ahead, largely based on the impact it would have on local residents including herself, this was not a relevant consideration.
6. In dealing with the lease issue the Council’s priority, as landowner, was to ensure it maximised the income it received from the premises. It was under no obligation to consult members of the public but was aware of their opposition to the development when it made its decisions.
7. The Council clearly had regard to the likely loss of income in making its decision to treat the lease issue as urgent but I have seen nothing to suggest it was wrong to do so.
8. Overall I have not seen enough evidence of fault by the Council in its handling of this matter and it is therefore unlikely further investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mrs X.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman