The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains the Council only gave him 48 hours to respond to its offer of presenting a talk in a local library. We will not investigate as the Council recognised and apologised for the short notice. We are unlikely to add anything by investigating.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to give him 48 hours to respond to a request that he organise a talk in a local library.
Mr X considers the short deadline is a deliberate attempt to exclude him. He says he contacted the Council first in March 2021 asking it to screen his films.
He wants the Council to commit to screen at least two of his films for Black History Month in 2022 as a remedy.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant which includes the Council’s responses.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X has raised several complaints to the Council in the context of raising disagreements/concerns with its programme of events for Black History Month (BHM).
The Council responded several times to his complaints. For example, it wrote to him on 8 October, 9 October,1 November, 12 November and 18 November 2021.
The crux of this complaint is the Council asking Mr X to do a talk relating to Black History. Mr X says he did not offer to give this talk, he had made contact earlier with officers about other matters related to BHM and, having made its offer, the Council only gave him 48 hours to respond.
I have read the Council’s letter to Mr X with the offer of a talk. It recognises and apologises for the short notice.
The Ombudsman will not investigate. The short deadline is unfortunate, but the Council has apologised. That the Council has not acceded to Mr X’s preferred vision of events for BHM is not evidence of fault as it is under no obligation to do so. It is not illogical of it to offer the talk to Mr X given his repeated contact about BHM issues. So, we will not investigate as it is unlikely we could achieve to add to the Council’s respose.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to add anything more by investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman