Summary: Mr X complained the Council incorrectly suggested he damaged one of its buildings. Mr X was also unhappy with the way the Council handled his data and his complaint. Mr X said this situation caused him reputational damage and a loss of income. We have discontinued our investigation because the substantive complaint is out of time. It is also unlikely further investigation will achieve a different outcome, or the outcome Mr X seeks. The concerns Mr X has raised about data processing are better dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council incorrectly suggested damage to the floor of one of its buildings was caused during an event he ran a stall at. Mr X also complains about the way the Council has handled his data and his complaint.
2. Mr X says this situation has caused him reputational damage as well as a loss of income.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• 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.

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

6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered the information he has provided. I also considered our assessment code.
8. Mr X and the Council commented on a draft decision, and I considered their comments before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. In November 2019 Mr X ran a stall at an event held in a building the Council owns. After the event the Council informed the event organiser, Ms Y, there was damage to the floor near Mr X’s pitch that had not been there previously.
10. Ms Y contacted Mr X to ask for his insurance details and explained he was liable for the damage. Mr X disputed being responsible for the damage and raised a complaint with the Council.
11. The Council agreed to look into Mr X’s complaint and appointed a complaint handler. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s choice of complaint handler as it had assigned the building manager and he felt they could not be a truly neutral party. The Council agreed to appoint a different complaint handler.
12. On 4 February 2020 the complaint handler wrote to Mr X to confirm the damage to the floor pre-dated the event he attended. The Council confirmed it did not associate Mr X with the damage or intend to pursue a case against him. It also confirmed it had not charged Ms Y or anyone else for the damage. The Council agreed it was at fault for not knowing the true condition of the room before handing it over to Ms Y and apologised for this. It also said it would communicate its findings with Ms Y.
13. On 10 February 2020, the Council issued its formal stage two complaint response to Mr X. This repeated that Mr X was not responsible for the damage. It also repeated the Council had made and would make no claim for costs.
14. Despite the Council’s conclusions, Mr X remained in dispute with Ms Y and their relationship deteriorated as she barred him from holding stalls at her events.
15. Mr X continued discussing the issues he was experiencing with Ms Y with the Council and it reiterated that it did not hold Mr X liable for any damage. The Council also contacted Ms Y again to explain this to her.
16. On 8 April 2021 to try and conclude the issue, the Council wrote to Mr X again accepting it was at fault for suggesting the damage had been caused during the event and apologising for the trouble this had caused. The Council explained this was an oversight rather than an attempt to defraud anyone and said it had informed Ms Y of this once again.
17. Mr X responded to the Council the same day to explain its actions had caused him to suffer personal insult, professional and financial damage.
18. On 12 April 2021 the Council’s complaint handler explained he had a new laptop which meant he no longer had access to all the prior emails. As a result of this, Mr X began to have concerns about how his data was being handled.
19. The Council’s complaint handler wrote to Mr X on 26 April 2021 to explain it was his last day with the Council. He explained that as the complaint had developed since it was first raised it may be worth Mr X raising this again to have all elements reconsidered. Mr X did this on 29 April 2021.
20. On 10 May 2021 the Council issued Mr X a final response. The Council broke Mr X’s complaints down into six sections and gave its final view on these. It explained that Mr X could refer his complaint to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
21. On 12 May 2021 Mr X submitted a Subject Access Request to the Council. It responded to this on 24 August 2021 but Mr X was not happy with the information he was provided.
22. Mr X contacted the Ombudsman in September 2021.

Analysis

23. Mr X was aware there was an issue in November 2019 when Ms Y let him know the Council had suggested he may have been responsible for damage. Mr X did not bring his complaint to us until September 2021, more than 12 months later. Because of this, Mr X’s complaint is late. I have seen no good reason why Mr X could not have contacted us sooner, therefore I will not exercise discretion to investigate.
24. In addition, it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome as the Council has already accepted it made a mistake and apologised. Only the courts can consider compensation for reputational damage so I would not be able to recommend the Council does more than it already has.
25. Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s complaint handling are also out of time. Further, it would not be proportionate to investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issues.
26. Ms Y is not employed by the Council, she is an independent event organiser. We would not be able to look into the actions of Ms Y or hold the Council liable for them.
27. Mr X has raised concerns about the way his data has been handled and the fulfilment of his Subject Access Request. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints about these issues and Mr X may raise this with the ICO directly. It would not be proportionate for the Ombudsman to investigate a matter in addition to the ICO, as Mr X suggests.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have decided not to investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint has been raised late and issues relating to data handling are better dealt with by the ICO. There is not sufficient reason to exercise discretion and look into this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman