Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a theatre production put on by the Council. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and Mr B has not suffered a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains about a theatre production put on by the Council. Mr B says changes were made to the production due to issues with the stage set and two key members of the cast were replaced. Mr B says the advertised production did not match the actual event and he was not told that changes could be made to the production when he bought tickets by phone. Mr B would like the Council to issue a full refund for the tickets he bought and a contribution towards his travel and accommodation costs.

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 B.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council did not agree to Mr B’s request for a refund. The Council said:
• The original set included a revolving stage which the venue could not accommodate, so it was decided to introduce an extra interval to allow for a scenery change.
• Two cast members were replaced because they tested positive for COVID-19.
• The terms and conditions for the performance were on the reverse of the tickets and also on the Council website. These say the management reserves the right to alter or amend the programme as necessary as a result of unforeseen circumstances.
6. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is for two reasons.
7. First, an investigation is unlikely to find the Council was at fault. The Council has explained why changes to the production were made. The Council has also explained that the ticket terms and conditions say changes to the programme could be made due to unforeseen circumstances. Mr B says he did not receive his tickets until just before the performance and the terms and conditions were not mentioned when he bought tickets by phone. But, we are unlikely to criticise the Council for not reading out every term and condition to a person who is buying theatre tickets over the phone.
8. Second, even if there was information to suggest the Council may have been at fault, an investigation would not be justified. 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.
9. Mr B was disappointed that the performance did not match what was advertised. But, this is not a serious injustice which would justify public money being spent on an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Also, Mr B has not suffered a significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman