Summary: Ms B complains about a warning letter issued to her by the Council. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, complains about a warning letter issued to her by the Council for failing to observe the rules of a local market. She says contrary to the rules, she did not receive an oral warning first and that the Council has not made clear why her communication, which led to the issuing of the warning letter, was not of the expected standard.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms B and the Council. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B runs a market stall. She contacted the Council about matters relating to the running of the market. Unhappy with the response she received, Ms B emailed back the market officer who had provided the response.
5. The Council considered this email to the manager to be contrary to the rules of the market which traders are expected to abide by. It sent Ms B a warning letter highlighting a section of the rules relating to the conduct of traders which it felt her email had been contrary to and explained it considered the tone of the email to have been “inappropriate and not of the standard expected”.
6. Ms B complained to the Council about a variety of matters and it considered her complaint under Stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It declined to carry out a Stage 2 review because it considered Stage 1 had properly addressed the issues raised.
7. Ms B complained to the Ombudsman about the issuing of the warning letter as the Council had not addressed this particular part of her complaint. She says in accordance with the Council’s own rules it should have issued an oral warning first and that it has not made clear why her email fell below the standard expected.

Assessment

8. The Council’s market rules state that the Council will issue an oral warning, followed by a written warning for a second offence. The Council did not do this and, in responding to the query I raised about this, it explained this was because the tone of Ms B’s email was such that the written warning was deemed appropriate.
9. While I suggest the Council clarifies its rules to state that in some cases a written warning may be issued without an initial oral warning, and that it explains to the trader concerned why such a decision has been made, I do not consider there are sufficient grounds to warrant an investigation of this complaint.
10. Ms B says the Council did not made clear to her why her email did not meet the standard expected. However, the warning letter she received stated that it was the tone of her email which was considered to be inappropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman