Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a marshal speaking to Mr X about wearing a face covering. There is not a significant enough injustice and it is unlikely we could achieve significantly more than the Council has already done.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s actions concerning an incident when he was asked to wear a face covering and told he should wear a lanyard if he was exempt from wearing a face covering. He says this caused him embarrassment at the time and he was later annoyed and frustrated by the Council’s response.

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. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence from the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X is exempt from wearing a face covering. A Council marshal in a shopping centre asked Mr X to wear a face covering. Mr X replied he was exempt. He reports the marshal then said Mr X should wear a lanyard, which Mr X explained he was not obliged to do.
7. The Council said the marshal was entitled to approach people who were not wearing face coverings. Mr X believes the Council is wrong on that point. The Council accepted the marshal should not have said Mr X should wear a lanyard. The Council apologised and said it had revisited the relevant law and government guidance with the marshals.
8. As paragraph 3 explained, we will not necessarily investigate every complaint that a Council is at fault. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to regulate or oversee councils’ activities generally.
9. I appreciate Mr X was embarrassed and upset by the incident and remains dissatisfied as he believes the Council has not properly admitted fault. In the circumstances, especially as this was a single incident, I do not consider the injustice to Mr X is significant enough to warrant investigation. It is also unlikely any investigation would achieve significantly more than the Council has already done by apologising for any upset and reminding staff of the law and guidance. As the Council took those steps, there is also insufficient wider public interest for us to investigate.
10. Mr X says the Council acted outside its legal powers and breached the Equality Act. Only the courts can rule definitively on those points.
11. Mr X suggested to the Council the incident might amount to harassment and a hate crime. Those are matters for the police, not the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough injustice and because any investigation would be unlikely to achieve significantly more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman