London Borough of Brent (25 011 730)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint because the Council did not give an end date or review date when it banned him from entering Council premises. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and provide this information.
The complaint
- Mr X complains the Council treated him unfairly when it banned him from Council premises.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
- If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended).
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- If we were to investigate this complaint, it is likely we would find the Council at fault. The Council wrote to Mr X banning him from Council premises. While the Council was entitled to ban Mr X, it did not tell him when the ban would end, in line with its process.
- We asked the Council to consider resolving the complaint early by writing to Mr X, within one month, to apologise for not telling him when the ban will end and to give him this information.
Agreed Action
- To its credit, the Council agreed to resolve the complaint by taking the actions set out above.
Final decision
- We have upheld this complaint. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman