Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s policies and alleged discrimination following a visit to the town hall. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not state its Town Hall entry rules when he attended the Town Hall and believes its policy on audio recordings violates his human rights.
2. Mr X also complains the Council discriminated against him based on his sex and race. He further says the Council’s decision not to uphold his complaint amounts to misconduct.
3. Mr X says the matter has caused him distress and violated his rights. He seeks an apology, compensation of £45,000, and a review of the Council’s policies.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says the Council failed to inform him of Town Hall entry rules. The Council states these are displayed on posters, accessible via QR code and website, and available from staff. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it communicated its policies.
8. Mr X says the Council’s audio recording policy violates his rights. The policy requires staff consent for recordings in Council buildings to protect privacy. There is insufficient evidence of fault.
9. Mr X alleges discrimination based on sex and race. He says that during a discussion with the Council, a staff member commented on his physical appearance. In its complaint response, the Council explained the officer’s reasoning and apologised if the comments had caused any offense. The Council has explained the comments but confirmed it did not treat Mr X differently, and it did not prevent him from accessing services. There is insufficient evidence of discrimination and so we will not investigate this.
10. Mr X also says the Council denied him a face-to-face appointment because of his race. The Council states that face-to-face meetings require advance booking and depend on staff availability. Mr X did not book an appointment and arrived when no staff were available which is why Mr X could not have a face-to-face appointment. There is insufficient evidence the Council treated Mr X differently due to his race or sex and it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
11. Mr X further complains the Council failed to uphold his complaint. However, the Council’s decision not to uphold Mr X’s complaint does not in itself constitute fault. The Council explained its position and we are unlikely to find fault in this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman