Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an interruption to a wedding ceremony. This is because we could not add to the previous investigation by the Council and because there is no evidence of fault causing a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about how the Council dealt with a guest who arrived late for his wedding. Mr X disagreed with the Council’s claim that he was told he could delay the ceremony until the guest arrived and says the celebrant did not deal with the late arrival properly, meaning his wedding was interrupted.

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 or may decide not to continue with 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that he was not given the opportunity to delay his wedding ceremony to wait for the late guest. This is because he and the celebrant have different recollections about what was said prior to the ceremony. I was not privy to those discussions so I cannot rectify the conflicting views of what was said. Therefore, it is unlikely we could make a finding on this issue.
6. Mr X says that when the guest arrived they in a mobility buggy and that the celebrant paused the ceremony to spoke to the guest for approximately 40 seconds, during which time they joked with them and asked if they were comfortable. He says this caused unnecessary disruption. The Council said this was to ensure the guest was settled before the celebrant could resume. It is unlikely we would find the Council to be at fault for this approach. Furthermore, the ceremony was concluded after a relatively brief disruption. I therefore do not consider that the short delay caused Mr X a significant enough injustice to warrant any further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the previous investigation by the Council and because there is no evidence of fault causing Mr X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman