Summary: The Council was at fault for not explaining its decision to start charging Ms X for the use of a storage cabin at a Council-run market. It was not at fault for applying the charge. The fault caused Ms X confusion and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council invoiced her incorrectly for the use of a storage unit at a Council-run market. She said the Council invoice included a period of five months before the unit became available to her, and before she signed a contract for the use of the unit. She wants the Council to withdraw the charges for that period.
2. Ms X also complained that Council unreasonably delayed issuing the invoice that related to these charges, and that her complaint was not handled by a member of Council staff who was independent of the market.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I also discussed the complaint with Ms X on the telephone.
6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Ms X operated a market stall on a site run by the Council. Ms X said that, although she had access to storage from 2020 onwards, she shared this with other stallholders and she did not pay for it. The Council provided evidence Ms X had signed a contract for a storage unit, for which it could charge a monthly fee, in September 2020. The Council did not collect payment in line with this contract. It says this was a gesture of goodwill.
8. The Council wrote to Ms X in July 2023, explaining that it was going to replace the existing storage containers with new ones. The letter said that all charges would “remain the same”. It said if she hadn’t yet received an invoice for the storage charges, then it would raise this “in due course”. It advised her to contact the Council’s debtors’ team for assistance in arranging a payment plan.
9. The Council required Ms X to move her stock to the new storage unit in September 2023. She signed a new contract with the Council at that time and understood that she would need to pay storage charges from then onwards.
10. In March 2024, the Council issued an invoice for monthly storage charges from April 2023 to March 2024.
11. In October 2024, Ms X complained to the Council that the invoice had not been fairly raised. The Council responded in November, apologising for the delay in issuing the invoice and any inconvenience caused. However, it said the market service had communicated the details of the charges both verbally and in writing, outlining the amounts due and the period covered. The Council offered Mrs X the option of a payment plan to help manage her arrears.
12. Ms X asked the Council to escalate her complaint in December 2024. A senior Council manager replied in January 2025, explaining the invoice had been delayed due to the refurbishment of the market compound in September 2023. The letter said the Council’s market staff had explained the reason for the delay to Ms X, and that she was aware of the situation at the time. It repeated that she had been informed, both verbally and in writing, that the invoice for the storage charges from April 2023 to March 2024 would be sent to her later in the year.
13. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman in April 2025. She said the Council:
• invoiced her for storage charges from April 2023 onwards, five months before she signed the contract;
• delayed issuing the relevant invoice until March 2024, causing her to build up unmanageable arrears, and
• did not investigate her complaint in an independent way.

Analysis

14. Ms X signed a contract for a paid-for storage unit in September 2020. The Council was entitled to levy a charge from then onwards. However, the fact the Council did not charge Ms X for three years meant its decision to start charging in April 2023 was a significant change. It should have communicated this to her clearly, and in advance.
15. The Council’s complaint responses said that Ms X was aware of the introduction of charges “at the time” but did not say whether that time was April or July 2023. The Council has not provided me with any evidence Ms X was aware of its decision to start charging before she received the letter of July 2023. While the Council was entitled to charge Ms X, the lack of communication before levying a charge was fault. This fault meant Ms X was unable to make financial preparations for the introduction of charging.
16. The Council’s letter of July 2023 said that the charges would “remain the same”. It did not say what, in monetary terms, those charges would be. Given that Ms X had not paid for storage in the three years before that letter was sent, it was reasonable for Ms X to interpret “remain the same” as being equivalent to zero charge. I find that the Council did not clearly communicate its decision to start charging Ms X for storage. This lack of clarity when informing Ms X about the charge was fault, that caused Ms X the injustice of confusion and uncertainty about when charging would commence.
17. In response to our enquiries the Council said it didn't charge Ms X until it allocated her a new cabin in “July-August 2023”, and that charges were “not backdated beyond this”, but it invoiced Ms X from April 2023. This highlights the Council's confused position. 
18. It was also fault that the Council did not issue the invoice for April 2023 to March 2024 until the end of that period. This fault did not cause Ms X additional injustice because she had been told in July 2023 that an invoice would be issued.

Complaint handling

19. Ms X told me that both responses from the Council were from – or heavily influenced by – the same Council officer. She said an independent officer should have considered her complaint.
20. The Council’s stage 1 response was sent by the manager of the service in question. This is standard practice and not fault. The stage 2 response was signed by a senior Council manager. This was consistent with the Council’s complaints procedure and is not fault. I understand that Ms X is concerned that the manager of the relevant service was involved with the stage 2 response, but that was necessary to inform the response. Such involvement is set out in the Council’s complaints procedure and is not fault.

Back to top

Action

21. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Ms X and make her a payment of £300 in recognition of the uncertainty and confusion caused by its actions, and
2. write to Ms X clarifying when the charges applied from and issue an amended invoice.
22. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
23. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

24. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman