Maidstone Borough Council (23 000 780)

Category : Housing > Other

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 24 May 2023

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will use our general discretion not to investigate this complaint about what happened when the complainant used a community food larder.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the way he was treated when he visited a community food larder.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
  2. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mr X visited a community food larder. He paid £3 to collect 12 items. During one visit he says someone who had assisted him on a previous visit looked in his bag and removed some potatoes; there was a suggestion Mr X had taken too many bags of potatoes. Mr X says that on this occasion the person was not wearing a badge or apron. Mr X says he spoke to this person in an “authoritative voice”, not least because his wallet was in the bag.
  2. A staff member banned Mr X from using the larder due to his behaviour and language. Mr X denies any inappropriate behaviour.
  3. In response to his complaint the Council said the person who looked in Mr X’s bag was not working at the larder because, as stated by Mr X, she was not wearing a badge or apron. The Council said staff and volunteers wear badges and aprons. The Council confirmed Mr X had been banned from using the larder due to Mr X displaying unacceptable behaviour towards staff and volunteers. The Council invited Mr X to get in touch for details about other sources of food support.
  4. Mr X wants a full investigation, an apology and compensation.
  5. I acknowledge Mr X feels he was treated badly and he denies any wrong doing or poor behaviour. However, while I recognise his dissatisfaction, we will not start an investigation. It is unlikely we could find out what happened regarding the bag and the potatoes and there are conflicting views regarding Mr X’s conduct. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome and Mr X can contact the Council if he needs information about other sources of support.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different response to the one already provided by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings