Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding signs in a shop about wearing face coverings. The Council’s fault did not cause Mr X a direct and significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not deal properly with his report of a shop displaying incorrect signs about face coverings. He says this resulted in him feeling intimidated and reluctant to visit the shop because of other customers’ behaviour towards him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the Council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him. I also considered copy complaint correspondence the Council supplied. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law - signs about wearing face coverings in shops

6. As part of the Government’s measures to deal with COVID-19, the law requires each shop to display a notice stating that people in the shop must wear a face covering unless they have an exemption or a reasonable legal excuse for not wearing one. (The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Undertakings) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, regulation 2A)
7. So, to comply with the law, it is not enough for a sign just to say people must wear face coverings. The sign must also say that people who are exempt or have a lawful excuse need not wear a covering.

Signs in the supermarket that Mr X complained of

8. Mr X is exempt from wearing a face covering. A supermarket Mr X uses displayed signs saying people must wear a face covering in the shop. The signs did not mention exemptions.
9. Mr X told the Council the signs did not comply with the law. He sent the Council internet links to the law, highlighting the relevant part. In a telephone call, two emails and its first response to Mr X’s formal complaint, the Council said, incorrectly, that the law did not require the signs to mention exemptions. Almost two months after Mr X first raised the matter, the Council accepted its previous responses were wrong. The Council apologised and said it would write to the supermarket about displaying signs that accorded with the law.
10. Mr X reports several weeks after that, the supermarket replaced the signs with new ones that referred to exemptions. Mr X is dissatisfied the Council took so long to raise this with the supermarket and that the Council has not taken formal action against the supermarket for having incorrect signs for so long.
11. Mr X says other customers in the supermarket (though not supermarket staff) made unpleasant comments to him when they saw him not wearing a face covering. He became fearful about visiting the supermarket and stopped going there for periods because of the way he was treated. Mr X argues the inadequate signs created an atmosphere in which other customers could think he was doing something wrong by not wearing a face covering and felt able to react unkindly. He suggests the Council’s failure to contact the supermarket when he first raised the matter allowed this situation to continue for several months.
12. As paragraph 3 explained, we will only pursue a complaint if the Council’s fault, or alleged fault, disadvantaged the complainant significantly enough to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigation. I do sympathise with Mr X about the unpleasant incidents. However, the problematic behaviour was by other customers. There is no direct, causal link between the Council’s fault (mis-stating the law and therefore not contacting the supermarket) and members of the public choosing to act unpleasantly. Any link could only be indirect. It is also speculative that, had the Council contacted the supermarket sooner and the signs been changed sooner, such incidents would not have happened. We cannot presuppose the other customers’ behaviour just stemmed from the signs not mentioning exemptions. Even if, after the signs changed, such incidents reduced, it would not necessarily follow the signage change was the reason, since that might also be affected by public levels of understanding and anxiety changing over time. Overall, I do not consider the Council’s fault caused Mr X a direct injustice significant enough for the Ombudsman to investigate.
13. Moreover, it is unlikely we would recommend more than the Council apologising and raising the matter with the supermarket. The Council has already done that. I consider that adequately remedied any direct injustice, including Mr X’s time and trouble pursuing the matter with the Council.
14. Mr X is unhappy the Council has not taken punitive action against the supermarket for the several months when the signs did not comply with the law. As the Council has raised the substantive point with the supermarket and the signs have changed, I do not consider the lack of further action in itself disadvantages Mr X significantly enough for us to investigate this.
15. The Council’s first response to Mr X’s complaint also said the supermarket had now improved its signs. The Council later accepted that was incorrect (the signs had not changed then) and it apologised. I consider the Council’s apology remedied this point sufficiently.

Mr X’s broader concerns

16. Mr X reports that, more broadly, many other shops in his area display signs about face coverings that do not mention exemption. He is dissatisfied the Council is not doing more to address this generally. That was not part of the formal complaint Mr X took through the Council’s complaints procedure, so I have not considered this point in detail. However, I would point out that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to police or oversee councils’ activities generally.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We shall not investigate this complaint. This is mainly because the potential injustice is not sufficient to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman