Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how a council officer dealt with two of her complaints. She says the officer failed to investigate her complaints properly. This is because the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how a council officer dealt with two of her complaints. She says the officer failed to investigate her complaints properly. She also complains the Council then refused to investigate her complaint about this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X made a complaint about the Council being obstructive in helping her get her child back into school. She complained the Council failed to consult with schools despite her asking it to do so.
6. In its stage 1 response, the officer said the case was currently at appeal and asked Mrs X to direct her issues to the Tribunal officer. Mrs X was unhappy with this response and escalated to stage 2. In its stage 2 response, the Council provided a more thorough response, including detailing the action it had taken to consult with the schools Mrs X wanted.
7. An investigation is not justified as, even if we were to find fault with the Council for its stage 1 response, I do not consider this caused Mrs X any significant injustice. This is because she was able, as per the Council’s complaints policy, to escalate and get her complaint dealt with at stage 2. The evidence also shows the Council did investigate and provided a more thorough response to her complaint at stage 2.
8. Mrs X other complaint is in relation to incorrect information about mediation being required being included in the Council’s letter. The stage 1 response upheld the complaint as it accepted the information in its letter was incorrect. The officer noted that it would escalate the matter to senior managers for the letters to be amended. At stage 2, the Council confirmed the letters would be updated within a week and shared with Mrs X to evidence it had amended the incorrect information.
9. An investigation is not justified on as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the officer had appropriately identified fault and told Mrs X what action would be taken to amend the letters. Again, even if we were to find fault, I don’t consider the fault would have caused any significant injustice. This is because Mrs X’s complaint was appropriately addressed at stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure.
10. Finally, the Council has discretion to decide what complaints it will respond to under its complaint procedure. The Council appropriately signposted Mrs X back to the Council’s final complaint responses relating to her substantive complaints. Therefore, we are not likely to find fault with the Council’s decision not to respond to Mrs X’s complaint about the way the officer investigated her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman