Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council passed to the police about things the complainant was alleged to have said in court. This is because it is unlikely, we would find fault, the alleged fault did not cause the complainant an injustice and because we cannot achieve the outcome that they want.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about information about what he was alleged to have said and done in court, that the Council passed to the police. Mr C says this led to his arrest which caused him distress. Mr C wants the person responsible to be dismissed.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as The Police. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Mr C’s complaint, information he provided and the Council’s response. I have invited Mr C to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Previous complaint

6. Mr C previously asked the Ombudsman to investigate a complaint about the contents of a letter the Council wrote, and the Council’s refusal to name the person who wrote the letter.
7. We did not investigate this complaint, because the letter had been considered in court proceedings, and because Mr C could contact the Information Commissioner, about the Council’s decision not to disclose the name of the person who wrote the letter.

What happened

8. Mr C complained to the Council about how it had dealt with information it had received about what he had said and how he had behaved during a court hearing. The information was similar to that contained in the letter referred to in Mr C’s other complaint to the Ombudsman.
9. Mr C says the Council passed this information to the police without checking if it was accurate. This led to his arrest and him being detained for a long period of time, which he says caused him distress.
10. Mr C said the Council should name the person who passed the information to the police and that they should be dismissed.
11. The Council told Mr C it would not consider Mr C’s complaint further because the issues raised had already been considered by the Ombudsman. The Council also said it would not be providing Mr C with the names of those involved in his case.

Assessment

12. Mr C’s complaint, that the Council refuse to name the member of staff involved in his case, has already been addressed in our previous investigation and for this reason I will not comment on this further.
13. Whilst the allegations contained in the letter, referred to in Mr C’s previous complaint are similar to the allegations which were passed to the police, I do consider this is a new complaint because it is about what the Council did after the court hearing.
14. However, I will not investigate Mr C’s new complaint because it is unlikely any investigation would find fault in how the Council dealt with the matter. The Council received information which related to a safeguarding concern and it passed this information to the police, something it is entitled to do. When doing so, the Council told the police that the information was from a third party.
15. I also do not consider that the Council’s actions directly led to any injustice. Mr C says he was arrested and held in custody for a long time, causing him distress. However, the decision to arrest and hold Mr C were made by the police and not the Council. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the actions of the police.
16. Finally, I cannot achieve the outcome Mr C wants. He says he wants the Council to sack the person who passed the information on to the police. However, we have no power to make recommendations of disciplinary action against a Council employee.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely, we would find fault, the alleged fault did not cause Mr C an injustice and because we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman