Mr X complained about Valleys To Coast Housing’s (“the Body’s”) decision to rerun a bidding process (“the second bidding process”). He also complained that it failed to undertake a third bidding process because significant information about the second bidding process was omitted from the body of an email. Finally, he complained about delays in communication.
The Ombudsman found that the decision to rerun the bidding process was based on legal advice and there was insufficient evidence of maladministration in the second bidding process. However, he was concerned that no supporting evidence of learning had been provided in relation to the accepted communication shortcomings and that if significant information had been included in the body of the relevant email, this could have prevented the situation from arising. He decided to settle the complaint without an investigation.
The Ombudsman sought and gained the Body’s agreement to provide further supporting evidence of learning in relation to the communication delays and review its processes to ensure the inclusion of important dates and significant information in the body of email correspondence.