Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the actions of the Council in connection with his sister’s, Ms B’s care. This is because there is no ongoing injustice to Ms B warranting an Ombudsman investigation. Mr A could have challenged the defamatory remarks made by a council officer in court. These are not matters the Ombudsman can consider.

The complaint

1. Mr A complains about his observations of a carer providing care to his sister when he was visiting her and the way the care provider and council responded to his complaints. Mr A says a council officer wrote defamatory remarks about him in a document presented in court.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
3. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information and documentation Mr A and the Council provided. I sent Mr A a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr A complains a council officer wrote defamatory comments about him in a document it then presented in court in March 2018. Mr A could have challenged these comments in the court. The Ombudsman cannot investigate matters which have been considered in a court.
6. Mr A complained to the care provider about Ms B’s carer throwing cushions, not opening her blinds, laying her down low and not disposing of her used gloves properly. He says he did not get a response to his complaint so contacted the Council. The Council explained the delay in considering his complaint was because it took a while to clarify that Ms B wanted Mr A to complain on her behalf. This is because Ms B’s next of kin and Power of Attorney is her daughter. The Council had to wait until it had received a signed consent form to be able to consider a complaint, which it received in June. It advised Mr A in September the Manager who dealt with the complaint at the time had left the agency but was able to clarify the worker Mr A complained about had stopped providing care to Ms B from that time.
7. The carer concerned is no longer providing care to Ms B so there is no ongoing injustice warranting an investigation by the Ombudsman.
8. Mr A complains about the time it took the Council to investigate his concerns. The Council has explained the reasons for the delay. Where the substantive matters do not themselves warrant investigation, the Ombudsman will not normally consider how the Council has responded to a complaint about them. That is the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no ongoing injustice to Ms B warranting an Ombudsman investigation. Mr A could have challenged the defamatory remarks made by a Council officer in court. These are not matters the Ombudsman can consider.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman