Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council mistakenly sending the complainant a copy of a confidential internal email about him, the contents of which he disputes. This is because the Council has apologised for the error. There is no on-going injustice and nothing for us to add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Dr S, says that:
• The Council refused to provide him with support under safeguarding, following some difficult events connected with a business he owned;
• Because Dr S continued to challenge this decision with several officers, over a considerable period of time, a Council Officer sent out an email regarding Dr S to other staff, but mistakenly also sent it to him. It included information about serious charges brought against Dr S, and it said officers viewed him as vexatious.
• Although the email was almost immediately withdrawn, Dr S saw it, and was distressed by it. He says the information about him is untrue and malicious, and was perpetrated by the safeguarding team.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr H and by the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5.  

Back to top

My assessment

6. The email was sent in 2020 and Dr S complained to the Council in 2022. However, I will not treat this as a late complaint as the Council has provided a final response dated March 2022.
7. The Council has apologised for the error in sending Dr S the email, and for the distress for him in reading difficult comments about himself. It says it was advising officers who had received multiple challenges from Dr S, on how to respond to him.
8. The Council also apologised for using the word vexatious and explained it should have said unreasonably persistent, in line with its policy. However, it also confirmed that no action was never taken as Mr S did stop contacting the officers.
9. We will not investigate this part of the complaint as there is no on-going injustice to Dr S and nothing that we could achieve through another investigation.
10. The Council stands by its decision that the triggers for safeguarding have not been met. Dr S continues to disagree with its view, but we will not consider this aspect of the complaint, as the events took place well over our 12 month deadline.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response to the substantive matter. I will not consider the other elements of the complaint because they took place too far in the past.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman