The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council complete a ballot for a Business Improvement District. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mr X complained about how the Council managed a ballot for a Business Improvement District (BID). He said the Council should have completed an alteration ballot, as the BID Company intended to increase the area it covered. Instead, the Council completed a renewal ballot. Mr X said that had resulted in more businesses having to pay the BID levy. He wants the Council to follow the law.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 our investigating, and there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
A Business Improvement District (BID) is a defined area where a BID Company develops projects to benefit businesses. Businesses in the BID pay a levy. The maximum period a BID can last is five years. Following that, if the BID Company wants to continue its activities, it must hold a new ballot. An appeal can be made where at least 5% of the people entitled to vote in the ballot, consider there was a material irregularity. The appeal is made to the Secretary of State.
Mr X’s complaint is the Council has incorrectly applied the Business Improvement Districts (England) Regulations 2004. He states the Council should have completed an alteration ballot to change the geographical area of the BID. The Council interpreted the Regulations differently and completed a renewal ballot as the BID had come to the end of its five-year term.
We will not investigate this complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to hold a renewal ballot at the end of the BID Company’s term as opposed to an alteration ballot. Furthermore, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to interpret the law; only the courts can determine and enforce legislation. Therefore, Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has interpreted and applied the Regulations is better dealt with by the courts.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman