Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint alleging a council officer was rude during a telephone call. This is because we are unlikely to add anything more to the Council’s previous investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr X, says a council officer, working in a social services office, was rude and patronising to him during a telephone call. He says the call made him feel depressed, stressed and anxious. He says he wants to be awarded compensation for this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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 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

3. I have considered the complaint information provided by the complainant which includes the Council’s response to his complaint. I shared my draft decision with him and read his response carefully.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X explains he needed his landlord’s address from the Council for legal action against the landlord. He said he explained the reasons for needing this to a Council officer over the telephone. He also told the officer about his eye disease which is incurable and cannot be treated.
5. Mr X reports the officer said, “you seem to be very independent because you’re asking for the landlord’s business and correspondence address, also you seem intelligent because you need this information for a county court claim against your landlord”.
6. Mr X said he felt offended. And depressed and anxious about asking this office for help in the future. He also says the officer complained about failed to respond to his request for a recording of the telephone conversation.
7. Turning to the Council’s complaints investigation, it says it cannot uphold his complaint as there is no independent evidence to confirm what happened. It has explained that this does not deny Mr X’s account and highlights the supporting evidence needed to uphold his complaint does not exist.
8. It explains it looked for this evidence by interviewing the officer in question and other staff present at the time. The interviews did not reveal any new evidence.
9. The Council answered Mr X’s query by providing him with the landlord’s address as requested. It advised this information was not ‘readily available’ to the officer complained about. It confirmed it does not record telephone calls.
10. It has also said it was sorry to hear of his dissatisfaction and apologises for him having to raise his concerns. Finally, it said it would review the training provided to staff about sharing information and advice to people who telephone the Council.

My analysis

11. My final decision is the Ombudsman will not investigate. The Council’s complaints investigation follows the Ombudsman’s principles of complaints handling. I find the response is sympathetic to Mr X’s concerns, note it explicitly states it ‘values’ his complaint and provides an apology for his dissatisfaction. It also proposes to carry out a review prompted by Mr X’s complaint.
12. The crux of the complaint is a lack of supporting evidence to support Mr X’s account. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to yield new evidence so we will not investigate. Additionally, as the complaint has not been upheld, we cannot criticise the Council for not awarding a financial remedy to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate. This is because we are unlikely to add anything more to the Council’s previous investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman