The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council not providing a lunch to her child Y during an activity day.
There is not enough injustice stemming directly from the incident complained of to justify us investigating. Other claimed injustices are not directly attributable to the incident. The Council’s apology provides the appropriate outcome, and an investigation would not achieve a different one.
The complaint
Miss X sent her child Y to an activity club at a local leisure centre. She complains the staff running the event failed to provide Y with lunch.
Miss X says she had to borrow money to give Y a late lunch, which caused her and Y extreme embarrassment. Miss X says her mental health conditions have been triggered by the incident, and she has lost trust in the Council. Miss X says she now has the cost of giving Y packed lunches for school because Y is worried they will not get fed there.
Miss X wants compensation, and for the Council to explain in more detail what happened at the event.
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: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; 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 from Miss X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
There is no dispute that Y did not receive a lunch during the activity day. The Council has apologised for this and changed its processes to try to make sure a similar incident will not happen again.
There is not enough significant personal injustice to Miss X and Y stemming directly from this incident which justifies us investigating. The direct injustices are: Y was hungry during the second part of the activity day. This of course was not ideal, but was a single incident and continued until Y received a late lunch; the cost of that lunch to Miss X, and the embarrassment she says was caused to her and Y from having to borrow the lunch money.
The impacts on Miss X and Y of the missed activity day lunch do not amount to a sufficient unresolved personal injustice to them which warrants us investigating the complaint. Miss X says the incident had other impacts on her and Y. But those other claimed injustices cannot solely and directly be attributed to the activity day incident.
The Council has apologised for the matter during its complaints process. An apology is the outcome we would have sought from the Council had we investigated, and had it not already been provided. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome here, which is a further reason for us not to investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because: there is not enough injustice stemming directly from the incident complained of to justify us investigating; and the apology given by the Council provides the appropriate outcome; and an investigation would not achieve a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman