The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful visit to a Christmas market. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about a visit he tried to make with his family to the Christmas market. He says the lack of traffic controls and marshalling caused chaos and they were forced to go home without attending the event. Mr X wants an apology and £100.
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 an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and information that the Council did not receive complaints about this issue from anyone else. I considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
Mr X tried to visit the Christmas market. He says there was no marshalling, travel chaos and it was impossible to park. After driving around trying to find a parking space, and getting stuck for an hour in a full car park, Mr X gave up and went home. He says there was no access to toilets and he lost out on what should have been a good experience.
In response to his complaint the Council explained the market is an unticketed free event and more people attended than in previous years. It said the traffic planning had been approved by the police and the safety group. It said that some real-time signs did not work which caused some congestion. It said more staff were deployed once it became apparent the signs were not working. The Council explained the event was planned in advance but it is impossible to predict or restrict numbers. The Council apologised because Mr X’s day did not go to plan but said other people were able to park and it was his choice to go home. The Council said it received good feedback from other people and told me nobody else had complained. The Council told Mr X it would review the event and take action, if needed, when planning the next event. It said the police were not called to any incidents and there were no safety issues. The Council declined Mr X’s request for compensation.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response. It is unfortunate Mr X’s visit did not go as planned but there is always a degree of uncertainty when attending free events and there is nothing to suggest the problems were caused by fault by the Council. The event was planned and had police approval but congestion was caused by the unexpected number of visitors. I appreciate Mr X blames the Council for the failed visit but, if the market was as badly run as Mr X suggests, then it is reasonable to expect the Council would have received more than one complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman