Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to be transparent about the charges when she held a pre-wedding event at one of its halls. She also complained the Council did not alert her to problems about catering in enough time and there were issues with lighting and poor ventilation on the day of the event. We find the Council was at fault for charging Miss X the wrong deposit money and for issues with the lighting on the day of the event. This caused Miss X frustration and distress. The Council has apologised to Miss X, returned her deposit, offered to pay £150 and put in place service improvements. This is appropriate to reflect Miss X’s injustice. We do not recommend anything further.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to be transparent about the charges when she held a pre-wedding event at one of its halls. She also complained the Council did not alert her to problems with catering in enough time, it failed to recommend halal caterers, the hall was poorly ventilated and there was a failure with the lighting system. Finally, she says the Council provided her with insufficient equipment to clean the hall and it failed to review the hall before the end of the event as per the agreement.
2. Miss X says the matter caused distress and upset. She also says it has had a financial impact.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council owns and manages a hall that has function rooms available to hire. Miss X contacted the Council in November 2024 and enquired about holding a pre-wedding event at the hall. She asked for the total cost of hiring the hall. The Council responded and said it charged £105 per hour on a Friday, and this went up after 5pm on a Saturday.
8. Miss X visited the hall in December. The Council emailed her after the visit and provided its terms and conditions and booking form. It explained it had included the kitchen hire charge in the booking form. It asked Miss X for a copy of her caterer’s public liability insurance, risk assessment and food hygiene certificate.
9. Miss X responded and said the initial charge was £105 per hour but the quote it provided her with was £1,240. She asked if this was correct. The Council responded and confirmed to hire the kitchen it was a further £400. That is why the quote was £1,240.
10. Miss X returned the booking form in early February 2025.
11. Miss X emailed the Council in late February and asked whether she could remove the kitchen hire from the booking as her caterer just needed a space to empty the food into the trays. The Council responded and confirmed it would still charge her for the kitchen as the caterer would need to use the kitchen facilities. It reminded her about the public liability insurance, risk assessment and the food hygiene certificate.
12. Miss X emailed the Council in May and said she wanted it to remove the kitchen hire from her booking. The Council responded and confirmed it had removed it. It sent a new summary of the charges. It also reminded her it still needed the documentation from the catering company.
13. Miss X emailed the Council on 24 June. She provided it with the food hygiene rating and insurance document from her caterer. The Council responded a few days later and said it could not accept the insurance documentation as it covered £5,000,000 rather than £10,000,000. It also said it needed the risk assessment.
14. Miss X emailed the Council on 9 July and asked whether it would accept public and products liability insurance up to £10,000,000. The Council responded and said it specifically needed public liability insurance.
15. The Council emailed Miss X on 11 July and said it had further reviewed the documentation she provided. It had noted a discrepancy between the address listed on the insurance policy and the food hygiene rating. It said it had escalated the matter to its environmental health officer. However, as it stood, it could not accept her preferred caterer.
16. Miss X had a telephone call with the Council on the same day. She asked for advice on what she could do next. The Council explained it would contact the Food Standards Agency to see if it could provide any potential solutions. Miss X asked if the Council could recommend any halal caterers. The Council said it did not have any recommendations as it only had an inhouse caterer who did not provide sit down meals, only sandwiches and cakes.
17. The Council emailed the caterer about the food hygiene certificate. It said it had spoken to its environmental health officer. The officer said the Council could not accept the certificate because it was against the policy. It suggested the caterer could contact its local authority to explain the change in address issue.
18. Miss X emailed the Council a week before her event and provided it with documentation for a new caterer. The Council responded and confirmed the documents met its requirements.
19. Miss X experienced issues with the lighting on the day of the event. She phoned the Council after the event and asked if she could receive compensation for the lack of lighting. No recordings or contemporaneous case notes exist of the call. Miss X says the Council told her it could not provide compensation for the lighting because there was tape residue left in the hall. The Council says the officer Miss X spoke to said she did not have the authority to authorise or refuse compensation. However, the officer told Miss X there was significant tape residue left in the room, which required an emergency cleaning call out. She said the Council would need to review this.
20. Miss X complained to the Council in early August. She said it did not tell her about the £300 security deposit until the day it took the payment. She also said it did not tell her about the kitchen hire fee of £400 until it sent the booking forms. She went on to say it delayed telling her about issues with the food hygiene rating and it failed to recommend halal caterers. She said on the day of the event there were issues with the air conditioning, ventilation and the lighting. She said it told her she could not have compensation for the lack of lighting because she left confetti and tape residue behind. It had failed to tell her leaving these behind would result in a lack of compensation. Finally, she said it failed to provide her with sufficient cleaning tools.
21. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in mid-August. It said its standard practice is to keep deposits to cover cleaning costs. However, it had decided to waive this as a gesture of goodwill because of the lighting issues. It said its terms and conditions set out the cleaning responsibilities. Finally, it said it could only comment on the caterer once it received the documents. It reviewed the documents before the event. The change of location had been amended on the public liability insurance document which invalidated the food hygiene rating.
22. Miss X referred her complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure. She asked why it charged her £300 for the deposit when its terms and conditions state £250. She also said there was no review of the function room before the end of the event as per the terms and conditions, and it failed to provide suitable cleaning equipment. She also said it did not tell her about the kitchen hire fee before it sent the booking form. She said was unhappy it would not allow her to pause the event while the technicians resolved the lighting issue. Finally, she said it failed to review the food hygiene certificate until two weeks before the event.
23. The Council issued its stage two response to Miss X’s complaint in late August. It apologised for the disruption caused with the lighting issues. It said it could not offer any explanation on why it was not working. It acknowledged the oversight for wrongly charging £300, rather than £250, for the deposit. It also accepted there was a lack of clarity around the kitchen hire fee and a lack of cleaning equipment. It said it was offering £150, on top of the previously returned security deposit. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and confirmed it was reviewing its booking procedures, staff training and communication protocols.

Back to top

Analysis

Charges

24. Miss X says the Council failed to tell her about the £300 deposit until the day it took the payment. The Council sent Miss X an email in December 2024 and provided a copy of its terms and conditions. The terms and conditions refer to a security deposit of £250. Therefore, I am satisfied Miss X was aware the Council could take a deposit in December 2024. This was before it took the payment. However, I accept the Council wrongly charged Miss X £300. This is fault, which caused Miss X frustration.
25. Miss X also says the Council did not tell her about the kitchen hire fee until it sent the booking form. Miss X asked the Council for the total cost of hiring the hall in November 2024. When the Council responded it did not include the kitchen hire fee. However, when it provided the booking form in December 2024 it detailed the fee. It would have been best practice for the Council to have explained the kitchen hire fee when Miss X asked for the charges in November. However, I do not consider this matter is significant enough to warrant a finding of fault. This is because it made Miss X aware of the kitchen hire fee before she made the booking. She therefore had the option to decide not to go ahead if she did not want to pay the fee. The Council also eventually removed the fee from the charges, and so Miss X did not suffer a significant personal injustice.

Catering

26. The Council initially asked Miss X for the documentation for the caterers in December 2024. It then reminded her in February and May 2025. Miss X provided the documentation on 24 June, which was only four weeks before her event. I accept the Council should have realised the discrepancy with the address on the food hygiene rating certificate when Miss X provided the documentation on 24 June, rather than two weeks later. However, Miss X had several opportunities to provide the documentation much sooner. I appreciate Miss X suffered a bereavement during this time which caused her distress, but I still consider there was ample time for her to send the documents so the Council could review them in good time and resolve any potential issues.
27. Miss X says if the Council had noticed the discrepancy sooner, the issues may have been resolved. Food hygiene matters can also take several months to resolve and so it is highly unlikely the situation would have been any different if the Council had realised the discrepancy straightway, rather than two weeks later.
28. Miss X is unhappy the Council could not recommend halal caterers. The Council says it does not have an approved supplier list, and it only has in-house catering that is limited to sandwiches and cakes. However, it allows customers to find their own caterers that meet their requirements. It also provides guidance to customers on the standards their preferred caterers must meet. This is a reasonable position for the Council to take. There is no obligation for the Council to have an approved supplier list or recommend specific caterers, especially when it allows customers to use their own preferred caterers. I do not find fault.

Lighting

29. In in its response to my enquiries the Council explained the coloured lighting was fully functional when the suppliers arrived. However, when the DJ connected their equipment, it resulted in a lighting fault. The lighting contractor confirmed a permanent fix would require a technician to access the lighting using a ladder, which could not be safely undertaken while guests were present. It says the stage lighting remain fully operational.
30. The issues with the lighting caused Miss X upset and distress. Miss X says the Council should have paused the event to resolve the issues. It is not clear from the Council’s notes or complaint response why it did not or could not pursue this option.

Ventilation

31. The Council says it checked the air conditioning units on the day, and they were fully functional with the ventilation active. However, because of the exceptionally hot weather, the hall temperature was hotter than usual. This was outside the Council’s control. I do not find fault.

Cleaning equipment and reviewing the hall

32. The Council has accepted it failed to provide sufficient cleaning equipment for Miss X’s event. This caused Miss X frustration.
33. The Council’s terms and conditions do not say it should check the hall before the end of the event. The Council says it inspected the hall when Miss X had left the event. However, it has not provided evidence of this. Miss X disputes this. Two different versions of events exist and due to the lack of records I cannot make an independent assessment of what happened.
34. The Council has returned the deposit to Miss X. It usually keeps this deposit to complete cleaning works if the customer has not appropriately cleaned the function room. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused to Miss X for failing to provide sufficient cleaning equipment. I do not recommend anything further.

Remedy

35. The Council has apologised to Miss X, returned the deposit and offered her £150 to reflect her injustice. I welcome the action the Council has taken and consider it is line with our guidance on remedies. I do not recommend anything further.
36. Miss X wants a full refund of the money she spent on the hall, and some money towards the costs incurred in having of having to cancel her original caterer. I do not consider a full refund or money towards the original caterer are appropriate recommendations for the injustice caused by the fault in this case. We would only recommend a full refund in cases where a council took the payment but failed to provide any service at all. This did not happen in Miss X’s case.
37. When the Council responded to my enquiries it explained the changes it has made since Miss X’s event. This includes updating the format of its booking form to improve clarity and transparency for its customers. It has also replaced the lighting system. I am satisfied with the improvements the Council has put in place. Therefore, I do not recommend any service improvements.

Back to top

Decision

38. There was fault by the Council, which caused Miss X an injustice. The Council has taken suitable action to remedy that injustice. I do not recommend anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman