Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Council officers making accusations about him; being prejudiced against him and lying to him about his mother’s wishes and the actions it would take. The complaint about the first officer lies outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because it is late. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now. The complaint about the second officer has not caused Mr X any significant personal injustice which would merit an investigation. We will not consider complaints about complaint handling where the substantive issue lies outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains Council officers were prejudiced against him; lied and made unfounded allegations about him in correspondence about his mother’s care and in response to his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information and documents Mr X provided which included email and complaint correspondence with the Council. I also considered complaint correspondence which we requested from the Council. I sent Mr X a draft of my decision and considered his comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X complains about two Council officers in his interactions with them when raising concerns about his mother’s care and welfare and in response to his complaint. Mr X complains to the Ombudsman solely on his own behalf and not on behalf of his mother, Mrs X.
8. Mr X says an officer made unfounded allegations about him, in email correspondence in August 2018, when discussing matters relating to Mrs X’s care provision. Mr X says he was also wrongly accused of trying to sabotage Mrs X’s longstanding care arrangements. Mr X complained to the Council about the officer’s comments in November 2018.
9. Mr X also complains about the Council’s May 2019 response to that complaint. He says the officer failed to properly respond to his complaint and lied about whether Mrs X wanted to engage in activities and about what actions would be undertaken for Mrs X.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. Mr X’s complaint about the first officer lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late. The law says complaints should be made to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the person first becoming aware of the matter. Mr X was clearly aware of the August 2018 correspondence at the time but did not complain to us until December 2019. I see no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider this late part of the complaint now.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the second officer’s response to his complaint. We will not consider complaint handling where we are not considering the substantive complaint because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The officer’s comments about Mrs X’s wishes and the agreed actions did not cause Mr X any significant personal injustice as they related to Mrs X rather than Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman