Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council in responding to the complainant’s questions and its decision not to pay compensation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Council delayed answering a question, provided an inadequate response, and refused his request for compensation. Mr X wants a meeting, a more personalised response, and compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes Mr X’s question to the Council and the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. In late 2023 Mr X asked the Council for information about what well-being services would be changed or introduced in the area. Mr X attended a meeting in March at which policy issues, and issues more personal to Mr X, were explored. The Council provided a written response in July which referred to the meeting and various policy issues.
5. Mr X asked for £250 compensation for the delayed response and raised a complaint about the response. The Council explained why the initial response had been delayed and apologised. It explained that the notes from the meeting showed a good effort had been made to answer his questions; it said he had asked difficult questions which were hard to answer succinctly. The Council declined his request for compensation.
6. Mr X has repeated his request for compensation and says the Council previously apologised for a delayed response. He said the response did not provide enough personal information about his options and he wants a meeting to discuss the issues further.
7. Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s response but there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice to require an investigation or compensation. The Council answered Mr X’s question, through a meeting and in writing, and referred to both general and personal information. Mr X is dissatisfied with the content of the response but that is not a reflection of fault. If Mr X wants further information he could ask the Council, perhaps by asking very specific questions about his circumstances. Mr X could also ask the Council for a meeting but it would be for the Council to decide whether to agree.
8. The response from the Council took about six months although there was a meeting in the interim. I agree this was a long time but the Council has given the reasons for the delay and apologised. There is no evidence the delay caused a financial loss to Mr X, or a denial of a service, so there is no reason to investigate the Council’s decision not to award compensation. Further, while I appreciate Mr X has been put to some time and trouble it does not amount to a degree of injustice requiring an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman