The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to instruct his company to pursue a claim for tax rebates on its behalf. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr C injustice and it would be reasonable for him to seek a legal remedy in court.
The complaint
Mr C complains the Council did not award him a contract to reclaim a tax rebate from a third party. He says the Council has treated him unfairly and he has incurred significant legal fees in investigating the claim and responding to its questions. He would like the Council to award him the contract, pay him for his services and reimburse the legal fees he has incurred to date.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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)) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr C proposed a project to the Council whereby he would reclaim a tax rebate from third parties which he says the Council should have received. The Council asked him for further information about the project but decided not to proceed with it. The Council did not invite Mr C to tender to provide his services, and there was not a contract in place.
Mr C says he has gone to considerable time and effort to provide the Council with information about the project and the potential benefits. He also says he has spent a large amount of money on advice from counsel to determine the viability of the project and answer the Council’s questions.
While I recognise Mr C is unhappy that he put work into the proposed project and has incurred a significant financial cost, he did this without any agreement in place for the Council to enter a contract with him, or to pay him for his services and costs he incurred. The Council was under no obligation to proceed with the project and the injustice Mr C claims results from his own actions and decisions rather than any fault by the Council. There is no suggestion Mr C informed the Council of any costs involved for proposing the project or answering its questions and Mr C’s decision to incur thousands of pounds of legal expenses with no guarantee the Council would proceed or reimburse him for these was solely his choice.
If Mr C believes the Council should pay him for his services and reimburse him for the legal fees he has incurred, it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court. Only the courts can decide whether the Council is liable for Mr C’s fees and if it should pay him for the costs he has incurred.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint. This is because the injustice Mr C claims is not the result of any fault by the Council. If Mr C believes the Council is liable for his fees and costs it would be reasonable for him to use the alternative court remedy available to him.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman