Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to the complainant after he reported some noise issues. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to respond to his queries properly and then blocked him. He wants the Council to rescind the ‘blocking’ letter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X complained about lack of control and supervision at a community centre. In response the Council said it would remind people using the centre to be considerate. It provided Mr X with the caretaker’s number. Mr X complained about a delay to his further request for a number that he can call for immediate action. The Council said it had responded to his enquiry and it would not respond further about that issue.
5. Mr X complained. The Council said it had provided a swift response. It accepted there had been a delay in providing a number for in-time contact but said it had had to contact another organisation. It said it had reminded the caretaker to keep his phone on while the hall is being used. The Council gave Mr X another number he could call. The Council said it would not rescind the letter which said it would not provide further responses.
6. Since complaining to us Mr X has sent recent emails about new issues which the Council is still considering. This includes complaints about noise. I have seen emails which show the Council is currently considering the noise complaint and reviewing the role of the caretaker. I will not comment on these issues because they did not form part of the complaint to us and have not yet completed the Council’s complaints process.
7. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice. The Council provided Mr X with contact details so there is someone he can call if there are problems at the centre. And, while Mr X may feel the response was too slow, this does not represent an injustice which requires an investigation. The Council has not blocked Mr X but said it will not respond further to that particular issue. Again, the impact is not one that requires an investigation. In addition, the Council is still considering his complaint about noise and will be reviewing the caretaker’s hours to see if more monitoring is possible.

Back to top

Final decision

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman