Summary: Miss X complains a Council officer has a personal vendetta against her; another Council officer is corrupt and; the Council has unfairly terminated her contract for services. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because it is unlikely we would find fault; allegations of corruption should be dealt with by the police and; the courts are better placed to consider any contractual dispute.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains a Council officer, Officer A, has a personal vendetta against her, affecting her ability to run her business. Another Council officer, Officer B, is corrupt and has caused problems for her. She also disputes the Council’s reasons for terminating her contract to provide supported accommodation.

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
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Miss X and I reviewed documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I gave Miss X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and I considered the comments provided.

Back to top

What I found

6. In March 2018 Miss X complained to a councillor about the Council. In summary she said Officer A:
• has a personal vendetta against her;
• has criticised her service provision;
• refused to negotiate over the fees for her service;
• removed young people from her setting.
7. The Council responded to the councillor in March 2018 as follows:
• There is no evidence of a personal vendetta.
• It has referred young people to Miss X’s service.
• There have been some concerns over documentation and risk assessments but these have been resolved.
• Miss X asked for additional fees which it refused to pay.
• It decided to move two young people because they were adults that should not be placed with children.
• It met with Miss X to discuss fees.
8. Miss X has provided her notes of the meeting with the Council. This shows the parties discussed disputes over Miss X’s invoices and Miss X asked for additional fees which the Council refused.
9. In May 2018 Miss X complained to the Council again. She said Officer A had:
• refused to negotiate on a proposed fee increase;
• insisted she carry out a traffic light system risk management plan when this is usually the social worker’s role;
• had differing views to her about the level of risk posed by clients;
• disputed her invoices.
10. Miss X also complained the Council had not referred any young people to her service and it had unexpectedly removed young people from her setting.
11. In August 2018 the Council responded to Miss X. It apologised for its delayed response. It did not agree it had treated Miss X unfairly and noted it had referred four clients to her service since March.
12. In November 2018 the Council terminated Miss X’s contract for services for breach of contract. Miss X disputes this.
13. Miss X says she reported Officer B to the Council in December 2018, accusing him of corruption. Namely, that Officer B demanded payment for private services under threat of harming her business, by way of his role at the Council.

Findings

14. The Council considered Miss X’s complaints about Officer A and found no evidence of a personal vendetta. And, I note the Council has given reasons for the actions taken by Officer A and others in relation to Miss X’s business. I will discontinue my investigation into this matter. This is because I consider it unlikely I will find fault by the Council and I consider it unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome to Miss X’s complaint.
15. Miss X has accused Officer B of corruption. However, it is not within my remit to consider criminal allegations. Miss X may wish to refer such matters to the police. I will therefore discontinue my investigation into this.
16. Miss X disputes the Council’s decision to terminate her contract for services. However, the courts are the appropriate body to consider contractual disputes and it is reasonable to expect Miss X to go to court if she wishes. I will therefore discontinue my investigation into this.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have discontinued my investigation. This is because I consider it is unlikely I would find fault; I cannot comment on criminal allegations and; the courts are better placed to consider any contractual dispute.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman