Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to explain to Mr B what he said that it considers to be abusive. Although Mr B is frustrated by the lack of explanation, I do not consider that significant enough to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council has accused him of being abusive to its staff, but has not explained what he said and why it amounts to abuse. Mr B is frustrated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened. In some circumstances we may not be able to make a finding.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr B was at a meeting with the Council about the care of his wife. Following the meeting the Council sent Mr B an e-mail, in which it said it has a zero tolerance for any abuse to its staff, including verbal abuse. The Council said witnesses at the meeting said Mr B was abusive to a member of the Council’s staff, so told Mr B this is unacceptable.
8. Mr B queried what was the abusive language he used. The Council has not explained this, it replied to say the abuse was verbal and witnessed by others at the meeting.
9. I understand Mr B is frustrated not to have a specific answer about what he said which the Council says is abuse. But I do not consider this is a significant injustice to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.
10. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints. It would not be a good use of the Ombudsman’s resource to investigate solely to get an answer to Mr B’s query. The Council has not placed any limits on Mr B’s contact with it and has not involved any formal procedure.
11. It is also unlikely we would find evidence of fault. The Council has a duty to protect its staff, and it would not be fault to issue a warning to someone who it considers has acted unreasonably towards its staff. The Council says there were witnesses to Mr B’s behaviour, and therefore it is more likely that we would not find fault by the Council in its decision to issue Mr B with a warning.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because any fault has not caused a significant injustice that would justify an Ombudsman investigation, and it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman