Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about comments and advice provided by a Council officer. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the response already provided by the Council’s investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about a Council officer’s comments and advice in a telephone call and email. Mr X says the officer should not have commented on Mr X’s situation because he did not know enough about it. He also complains the officer’s signposting advice was not appropriate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), 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 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

4. I considered the information Mr X provided. I also considered the complaint correspondence which we obtained from the Council. I sent Mr X a draft copy of my decision and invited his comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X uses a pendant alarm service. He was dissatisfied with the service provider due to its response when he pressed his alarm during a panic attack whilst stuck in a lift.
6. Mr X complained about a Council officer’s subsequent advice and recommendations during a telephone call and email to discuss moving to a new provider. Mr X said the officer should not have commented on his situation by advising him to contact his GP or relevant websites for support with his panic attacks. He also complained one of the telephone numbers he provided for a new supplier was incorrect.
7. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint. It found no fault in the advice and signposting the officer had provided. On balance, it felt he had offered good advice which could provide support for Mr X and possibly prevent a reoccurrence. It apologised if one of the telephone numbers the officer provided was incorrect.
8. The Council confirmed it did not fund Mr X’s pendant alarm service. As such, it was for Mr X to decide whether to switch to a new service, although it could provide details of alternative suppliers.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council and it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the response already provided by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman