Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the Council considered his complaint about the way he has been treated by the Council when he complained about his Freedom Pass. This is because the issues with the pass have been resolved and where we are not investigating the substantive matters we will not normally consider the way a council deals with a complaint. That is the case here.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained about the way he felt he was treated by council staff. Mr B says the Council’s refusal to properly consider his concerns about the way he has been treated is intimidating and abusive. Mr B says not being listened to has affected his mental health and caused him additional anxiety. Mr B says he wants his five points addressed properly and an apology.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I discussed the concerns with Mr B and considered the information he provided.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B complained about the way council staff treated him following concerns that his Freedom Pass did not contain an up-to-date photograph. He asked the Council to consider his five points further and asked for a different person not involved in his initial complaint to consider it.
5. The Council refused to do this and explained another person looking into his concerns would not achieve a different outcome. It confirmed the issues with Mr B’s Freedom Pass have now been resolved.
6. Mr B has confirmed he now has a Freedom Pass but wants us to investigate the way the Council has made him feel. Mr B says a different person in the Council should have investigated his complaints about bullying and intimidation.
7. Mr B says his complaint is not about the pass but that the Council has acted corruptibly, and he has been bullied. We would not be able to make a finding on the way a person is made to feel when it is the persons perception and cannot tell a council how to use its resources. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the issues with the pass have been resolved and where we are not investigating the substantive matters we will not normally consider the way a council deals with a complaint about the response to them. That is the case here.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman