Forestry Commission

6. Mr U complains on behalf of himself and two other trustees of a charity (the Charity). The Charity provides low cost accommodation for young people to spend time in the Lake District. The accommodation is in a field centre (the Centre), which is leased to the Charity by FE.

7. Mr U complains that FE reneged on its promise to renew the lease on the Centre for a further 20 years once the existing lease expired in 2017. Instead, in January 2022, it made the decision to renew for only five more years with a review in three years’ time.

8. He also complains that FE did not comply with its complaint handling process when it responded to the Charity’s complaint about the lease.

9. As a result of FE changing its decision Mr U says the Charity: • has wasted over £150,000 of investment into the Centre which it would not have had known the lease was going to be reduced to five years • lost the contract with a major customer because of the short term lease.

10. As a result of the poor complaint handling, Mr U and the other Trustees experienced frustration and upset.

11. Mr U would like FE to look again at its decision to only extend the lease by five years and to pay costs equivalent to: • the reinvestment in the Centre which the Charity carried out on the assumption that the lease would continue for another 20 years • legal costs for the negotiation of the terms of the shortened lease.

12. He would also like: • a financial remedy for the stress resulting from FE’s change of decision and the poor complaint handling • service changes to FE’s complaint handling so that when it receives a complaint, it acknowledges it as such.

Background details:

Decision to shorten the term of the lease

13. FE is an agency of the Forestry Commission (FC) and is responsible for managing publicly owned forests in England. FC is a large government department which is also made up from Forest Services and Forest Research.

14. FC and FE had previously agreed a 49 year old lease of the Centre to the Charity. This lease was coming up for renewal in 2017.

15. Mr U says FE, FC land agents and local forest managers had provided written confirmation that both were prepared to offer the Charity a further 20 years on the lease of the Centre.

16. Mr U says on the basis of these assurances, the Charity invested £100,000 in a hydro-electric scheme at the Centre. FE approved the installation of the scheme.

17. Mr U also says a grant provider had agreed to a grant for classroom refurbishment on the basis of an assurance of at least ten further years of lease as a condition of the grant.

18. The lease negotiations started in 2017. They were protracted and there were several delays. The first draft in 2019 agreed to extend the lease by 22 years from 30 April 2017. The Trustees agreed to this draft but then did not hear anything more.

19. There was no further progress during the COVID-19 lockdown and in January 2022, FE announced it was going to reduce the term of the lease to three years to accommodate the reintroduction of captive beavers on the site. It was also going to use the Centre for warden accommodation and a visitors’ centre.

20. The Charity approximately £100,000 on legal advice to find out if they could challenge the reduced term of the lease. It later chose not to proceed due to the risk of further costs.

21. In 2022/2023 FE agreed to increase the term of the lease to five years. This required further legal negotiation of the revised terms of lease.

22. The Charity and FE finally agreed and signed the lease in April 2024. It had just entered its second year at the time we received Mr U’s complaint. At time of the signing of the lease, the Charity also signed a settlement agreement. This agreement said FE would pay the Charity £12,000 in compensation to acknowledge the delays and late change of decision about the term of the lease. It also contributed £3000 towards legal costs.

Complaint handling

23. Mr U says various members of the Charity submitted a number of complaints during the ongoing negotiations about the lease from 2017.

24. In July 2022, the Charity first complained to FE about its decision to shorten the term of the lease.

25. FE responded in August 2022 saying it could not comment on the revised offer for the term of the lease because there were still ongoing legal negotiations.

26. In September 2024, FE confirmed it was looking at the complaint at stage two of its complaint process and in October 2024 at stage three. At each stage it said it could not comment on the decision to reduce the term of the lease. The final response signposted the Charity to PHSO.

27. Mr U bought the complaint on behalf of the Trustees to PHSO in December 2024.

Change of decision about the term of the lease

31. We cannot investigate complaints that refer to commercial or contractual matters. This is set out in schedule 3, paragraph 9 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (PCA 1967).

32. This part of PCA says we cannot look at cases where ‘[Action taken in matters relating to contractual or other commercial transactions, whether within the United Kingdom or elsewhere, being transactions of a government department or authority to which this Act applies or of any such authority or body as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of section 6 of this Act and not being transactions for or relating to— (a)the acquisition of land compulsorily or in circumstances in which it could be acquired compulsorily; (b)the disposal as surplus of land acquired compulsorily or in such circumstances as aforesaid.’

33. We have reviewed this part of the complaint in light of this legislation to see if we can investigate.

34. In this case, Mr U’s complaint relates to the costs of the improvements and other investments the Charity carried out on the assumption that FE would extend the lease for a further 20 years. The Trustees have complained about FE’s failure to then keep its promise. As such this appears to be a commercial dispute and is therefore out of our remit in line with the PCA 1967 set out above.

Complaint handling

35. Mr U has asked us to look at the FE’s handling of the Charity’s complaint about the FE’s decision. He says FE did not follow its complaint handling process.

36. We have looked at FE’s policies and procedures to see what should have happened in this case.

37. FE’s complaint procedure, 2018 is available on its website. At stage: • one, the complaint is considered by the local forest district office • two, the complaint is considered by the Forest Management Director • three, the complaint is considered by the FE’s Chief Executive Officer.

38. Also available on FE’s website are its service standards, 2018. These say FE will: • treat all complaints seriously and investigate a complaint thoroughly and fairly • try to put things right as quickly as possible if it is at fault and, if it is not, will give the complainant a full explanation • learn from complaints and take action to improve its services • acknowledge all written complaints within five days and let the complainant know who is handling the matter and how to contact them • respond in full within 20 working days of receiving complaints. If it is not possible to give a complainant a full reply within 20 working days, for example if a complaint requires more detailed investigation, FE will contact the complainant to advise what is being done and when they can expect a full response.

39. We have also considered our Principles of Good Administration, 2009 which say public organisations should behave helpfully, dealing with people promptly, within reasonable timescales and within any published time limits. They should tell people if things take longer than the public body has stated, or than people can reasonably expect them to take.

40. Mr U has provided us with relevant correspondence between FE and the Charity between July 2022 to October 2024.

41. The Charity first complained to FE about the term of the lease in July 2022. FE responded in August 2022. We have not seen any evidence of its acknowledgment of the complaint within five working days, but we see it issued its response within the 20 working day timescale set out in its service standards. The response: • explained that it could not comment further at that stage since the matter was still undergoing legal consideration • did not advise when it was likely to be able to consider the matter as a complaint or arrange any follow up.

42. FE did not respond to the Charity’s further enquiries about its complaint in November 2022 and February 2023.

43. In August 2024, the Charity complained to FE that it had not arranged to discuss a flooding problem as agreed within three months of signing the lease.

44. In September 2023 FE wrote to the Charity. It apologised for the delay and set up a date for the discussion to take place within a few days. It said it could not take any further action regarding the change in term of lease. It advised that it was now considering the complaint in line with stage two of the complaint process. Again we have not seen an acknowledgement of the complaint, but we see FE issued a response within eight days.

45. In September 2024 the Charity contacted FE to follow up its complaint about the shortened lease term.

46. FE responded one day later confirming that it was now looking at the complaint at stage three of its complaint process. It sent a further response in October 2024 which said the flooding issue had been resolved and it did not consider there was any further issue to discuss regarding the lease. It signposted the Charity to our service.

47. Having considered the available evidence, we have seen that there are indications of failings in the way in which FE handled the Charity’s complaint in 2022 about the lease.

48. FE did not provide confirmation of receipt within five days to any of the Charity’s complaint correspondence except to its last follow up complaint in September 2024. This is not in line with its service standards.

49. We see that FE progressed the complaint through the three stages of its complaint process. However, in its first response it did not explain that the complaint was at stage one or how to progress the complaint. It did not provide any further information as to why it could not make any comment on the complaint about the decision to change the lease term.

50. This was not in line with its service standards which say that it will try to put things right as quickly as possible if it is at fault or otherwise provide a full explanation to the complainant Subsequently it appears FE: • did not respond at all to the Charity’s follow up complaint correspondence in November 2022 and February 2023 • confirmed it was looking at the complaint at stage two and then stage three but without giving a clear response to the matter of the shortened lease term • did not respond at all to enquiries the Charity made in November 2022 and February 2023.

51. The above is not in line with: • its complaint standards which say it will respond in in full within 20 working days or will tell the complaint when they can expect a response if it is likely to take longer • our Principles of Good Administration, 2009 say public organisations should behave helpfully, dealing with people promptly, within reasonable timescales and within any published time limits. They should tell people if things take longer than the public body has stated, or than people can reasonably expect them to take.

52. Mr U says that the poor complaint handling caused the Charity Trustees further frustration and upset on top of the stress they were already experiencing due to FE’s decision to change the term of the lease.

53. He is looking for a financial remedy and service changes to improve FE’s complaint handling so that when it sends an acknowledgement when it receives a complaint.

54. To decide on a level of financial remedy, we review similar cases where the person has experienced similar injustice. We also use our ‘severity of injustice scale’, taken from our ‘Guidance on Financial Remedy’ to determine the degree of impact on an individual. This ensures any recommendations we make are consistent and transparent for everyone who uses our service. The scale contains six different levels of injustice which increase in severity.

55. In this case we consider that the impact on the Charity is at level one of our scale. This is because level one appropriately describes the frustration and upset caused to the trustees by FE’s poor complaint handling.

56. In making this decision we have decided FE did not specifically delay making a final decision on the Trustee’s complaint about the lease since it said at the start that it could not look at the matter due to ongoing legal process. However we see it could have made it clearer that this was a final decision. This together with a failure to respond to Mr U’s correspondence was frustrating and upsetting.

57. We therefore asked FE to provide an apology to Mr U and set out what it will do differently in future. It has agreed to do this within two weeks of our decision.

58. FE also tells us that since Mr U submitted his complaint, it launched ‘Customer Voice’ in November 2023.  This initiative includes a customer service toolkit to support staff in responding to customers and includes training in effective written responses to complaints. It told us that it will provide Mr U with some more information about this.

59. In summary we consider this is an appropriate way to address the distress FE’s complaint handling caused.

60. We understand Mr U will be disappointed by our decision not to investigate the first part of his complaint and we are sorry we cannot take this matter further for him.

1. We have carefully considered Mr U’s complaint about Forestry England (FE).

2. We are sorry to hear about Mr U’s difficulties in negotiating a further lease with FE.

3. Having reviewed the available evidence, we have decided we cannot take any further action on Mr U’s complaint about FE’s change of decision regarding the term of the lease. This is because this part of his complaint is outside our remit for investigation.

4. We have seen indications of failings in FE’s complaint handling. We have seen that FE have not done anything to acknowledge or put right the upset caused.

5. FE have since agreed to apologise to Mr U, and to explain what steps it will take to prevent someone else having the same experience. We consider these actions provide an adequate remedy to put right the upset caused to Mr U. For this reason we have decided we do not need to take any further action. We have explained our thinking below.