Summary: A woman complained about a council’s handling of her complaint. The Council has apologised for the upset she was caused by its handling of her complaint. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is nothing further an investigation could add.

The complaint

1. A woman I will call Ms P complained to us about the way in which Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (the Council) responded to a complaint she made.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 the cost of 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)

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because a complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered copies of correspondence provided by Ms P and the Council.
6. I shared a draft of this decision statement with Ms P and considered her comments.

Back to top

Assessment

7. On 4 October 2018 a social worker I will call Officer C called Ms P unexpectedly. Ms P was upset by the phone call. On 16 November, Ms P requested a copy of the Council’s records relating to the subject of the phone call.
8. On 26 November 2018, the Council wrote to Ms P requesting proof of identity prior to releasing the records. On 28 November, Ms P emailed a Council officer I will call Officer B expressing concerns about this letter. Ms P says she also spoke with Officer B regarding her concerns about Officer C. She says Officer B told her she would treat the conversation as a complaint, and Ms P would receive a full explanation of Officer C’s conduct in due course.
9. The Council sent Ms P the records on 11 December. Ms P says she phoned Officer B on 13 December because there was no reference in the Council’s correspondence to her complaint about Officer C. Ms P says Officer B apologised for the conduct of Officer C about which Ms P was upset. Ms P asked for a letter confirming the conversation, and Officer B agreed to send one straight away.
10. On 6 June 2019, Ms P emailed Officer B to say she had never received a letter regarding her complaint about Officer C’s conduct. Officer B forwarded Ms P’s email to the Council’s complaints team.
11. A manager wrote to Ms P to provide some explanations regarding Officer C’s conduct and to apologise for the distress this caused Ms P. Another manager I will call Officer D responded to Ms P’s concern about Officer B not acting on her complaint. Officer D’s letter said Officer B “has no recollection of this conversation, and indeed would have advised you that this is not her area of expertise, if such a conversation had taken place”. The letter suggested that “the conversation was held with a third party, not [Officer B]”.
12. Ms P emailed the Council on 26 June. She said she was offended by Officer D’s response. She said she knew she’d had the conversation with Officer B, Officer D’s “choice of language was guaranteed to upset” her, and Officer B’s failure to recollect the conversation was “not a sufficient basis upon which to reach the conclusion of an investigation”. Ms P said the Council had failed to apologise for overlooking her complaint, and instead had insisted that her memory was at fault.
13. The Council carried out a review of Ms P’s complaint and produced a report of its findings. It said Officer B could not recall the full details of her conversation with Ms P during the period October to December 2018, and it could not find a written record of a complaint from Ms P during that time. It said it was difficult to be sure what happened. The report’s author spoke to the relevant staff about the need to refer complaints to the appropriate manager at the time, and discussed with them how Ms P felt. The staff apologised for this. The report’s author said they did not believe Officer D intended to upset Ms P, but they could see “how [Ms P] felt this to be the case”.
14. The Council sent the report to Ms P on 26 July with a covering letter. The letter apologised that Ms P was upset because of the matters she complained about. It said that Officer B did not recall speaking with Ms P did not mean the complaint was not made. It said it could not determine exactly what happened, and apologised that the matter “was not followed through to [Ms P’s] satisfaction”. It noted that the team had “reflected on practices and processes”. It apologised that Ms P was offended by Officer D’s letter.

My view

15. I can see that Ms P has been upset by the matters she complains about. However, an investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council on this point or be likely to reach a different outcome.
16. The Ombudsman would be no more able than the Council to determine what happened in October – December 2018. Further, the Council has apologised and explained what it has done to prevent recurrence of similar issues. This is a reasonable remedy.
17. For these reasons, I consider that an investigation by the Ombudsman would have no benefit further to the investigation already carried out by the Council.

Back to top

Decision

18. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman