Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to follow its complaints procedure. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we do not consider there can be enough injustice to the complainant because of any failings in the complaints process alone to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed in dealing with his complaint about the community trigger process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Mr X and discussed his concerns with him.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X experienced difficulties and delays when initiating the community trigger process. He complained to the Council. The Council acknowledged his complaint, stating he would receive a response by the beginning of October.
5. After the deadline set by the Council passed, Mr X began to chase for a response to his complaint. He sent at least four emails to the Council, the Mayor, his London Assembly Representative and his MP. Eventually he received a response in November, which he says shows the Council misunderstood his complaint.
6. Following receipt of the Councils response, Mr X lodged a formal complaint about the Council’s failure to follow the complaints process. The Council acknowledged this complaint. As he had not received a response Mr X sought the help of his representative at the London Assembly. He received a response in December. This response upheld the complaints he had raised. And it explained the mitigating circumstances led to the delays. It apologised to Mr X.

Assessment

7. I have spoken to Mr X and he confirmed he is not complaining about the Community Trigger process and the resulting action taken by the Council. He is complaining about its failure to follow its published complaints procedure.
8. The Council did not respond to Mr X’s complaint within the timeframes set out in its complaints policy. The Council has apologised for this. Mr X says there was ‘a fundamental arrogance and incompetence that manifested in what (he) perceived to be systematic and deliberate blanking of (his) complaint’ . He believes this was an attempt to wear him down in the hope he would go away.
9. While we would expect the Council to respond in accordance with its complaints policy, I do not propose to investigate this issue further. We will not look at the way a complaint has been considered in isolation. We consider both the handling of the complaint and the substance of the original complaint. If we consider that the original complaint is not something that we would in its own right investigate, or if the person affected is only complaining about the complaints process, then we will not investigate. This is because we do not consider there can be sufficient injustice to the complainant because of any failings in the complaints process alone to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. For the reasons given above, I will not investigate this complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman