Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about business start-up support because we could not add to the Council’s response and Ms Y has not suffered significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the Council’s lack of response to her emails, in which she requested business start-up support. She says the Council’s delays have resulted in her being unable to formally start her business.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
5. The Information Commissioner’s Office oversees data protection legislation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Ms Y and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms Y sent email enquiries to the Council regarding start-up support for her business. She didn’t receive a response, so complained to the Council in October 2025 about this. The Council acknowledged an error when investigating Ms Y’s complaint. It said her email sent in September 2025 was wrongly marked as responded to due to human error, which is why she did not receive a response. The Council apologised to Ms Y and upheld her complaint. It also awarded her £50 compensation.
9. The Council invited Ms Y to engage with its Local Economies Team, to discuss her business needs and develop a business support plan. We could not add to the Council’s response and therefore will not investigate this complaint. I am satisfied the Council investigated Ms Y’s complaint properly. It demonstrated good complaint handling and responded appropriately to acknowledge the identified fault. It also reviewed its procedure and made service improvements to ensure such errors do not occur in future.
10. Ms Y says the Council’s delay in its response resulted in her being unable to formally start her business. From evidence I have seen, Ms Y’s business has been set up. Whilst I acknowledge the Council’s fault, I do not consider Ms Y suffering significant personal injustice because of this.
11. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
12. Ms Y has also raised concerns around the Council’s data governance. The Information Commissioner’s Office oversees data protection legislation and is better placed to consider this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s response and she has not suffered significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman