31 March 2016

Mr X Yyyyyy
XX Xxxxxx Yyyyy
GRIMSBY
DN00 XYY

Our ref:

15 016 673

(Please quote our reference when contacting us and, if using email, put the number in the email subject line)

If telephoning please contact: 0330 403 4725

email address: A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk

Dear Mr Yyyyyy
Complaint against North East Lincolnshire Council
The Ombudsman has asked me to review Mr Oxleys decision on your complaint to make sure this
was justified by the evidence.
Mr Oxley has the delegated authority of the Ombudsman to make decisions on her behalf. His
decisions carry the same weight in law as decisions made by the Ombudsman herself and can
only be challenged by judicial review. There is no right of appeal, but we offer one internal review
to consider whether the decision has been made.
I have reviewed how Mr Oxley handled the case to make sure that his decision was justified by the
evidence. After reviewing the file and looking carefully at what you have said, I appreciate you may
be disappointed, but I support the decision to close your complaint.
Your complaint is, in summary, that the Council made a charge of 70 for the issue of a council tax
summons. You disputed the level of the charge. You took legal action against the court in the High
Court by way of case stated. You then issued judicial review proceedings, which you later
withdrew. You suggested the question costs should be jointly investigated by the Local
Government Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Schedule 5, paragraph 1 of the Local Government Act 1974 says the Local Government
Ombudsman may not investigate The commencement or conduct of civil or criminal proceedings
before any court of law.
The issue of the summons with the costs was commencement of proceedings and so this is out of
the Ombudsmans jurisdiction and she cannot look at the costs or what happened in court

PO Box 4771
Coventry
CV4 0E1

www.lgo.org.uk
0300 061 0614

You may dispute our understanding of our jurisdiction, but you have also taken legal action against
the actions of the court. Although technically this action was not against the Council this would be
a reason, were the summons costs in jurisdiction, (which they are not) for the Ombudsman to
exercise her general discretion (under Section 24A(6) of the 1974 Act) not to investigate.
This would be by analogy with the legal restriction (in Section 26(6)(c) of the 1974 Act) which
means she cannot investigate if someone has used a right to challenge a councils decision in
court. This principal was confirmed by the case of R v The Commissioner for Local Administration
ex parte PH (sometimes ex parte H) 1998 (Ex parte PH) where the judge said
"Finally, it is plain that the intention underlying the Act of 1974 was to provide redress for
those people who were denied the possibility of resort to redress of any kind in respect of
maladministration by a local authority in exercise of its administrative powers. It can hardly
have been the intention of Parliament to have provided two remedies, one substantive by
way of judicial review and one compensatory by way of the local commissioner."
"Where a party has ventilated a grievance by means of judicial review it was not
contemplated that they should enjoy an alternative, let alone an additional right by way of
complaint to a local government commissioner."
And also in R (Scholarstica Umo) v Commissioner for Local Administration in England [2003]
EWHC 3202 (Admin) where the judge said To commence proceedings by Judicial Review will, as
a result of the statutory structure, deprive the Ombudsman of jurisdiction thereafter to investigate.
Concerning the exercise of our discretion I would refer you to R (on the application of Doy) v
Commission for Local Administration in England [2002] Env. L.R. 11 where the judge found that
decisions of the Commissioners are subject to review, but the Commissioners are given a very
wide discretion and the courts can only set aside their decisions if they are wrong in law,
irrespective of the fact that any particular Judge would have come to a different decision.
So Mr Oxley was right to say this was not a matter we could investigate.
Because Mr Oxley properly considered your complaint, I will not overturn the decision which he
made on behalf of the Ombudsman under her delegated authority. Therefore, although I recognise
that this will disappoint you, the decision must stand.
I understand you may continue to disagree. Our process allows for one review of a decision, and
this is that review. We have now finished considering your complaint and the decision is final.
Your remaining means of challenging our decision is through judicial review in the High Court.
Please take some advice before considering taking such action as the Ombudsman will as a
publicly funded body to seek to recover our reasonable costs in defending unsuccessful
applications.

The case remains closed and we shall not write about or discuss it further because we cannot
justify the cost of continuing to communicate with people whose cases we have closed. We shall
note any further contact from you, but we will not acknowledge it or reply unless it clearly
contains new information which we decide has a bearing on our decision.
Yours sincerely

Andrew Hobley
Assessment Team Leader