Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint about the actions of an officer. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council made threats against him and that it transposed statements and actions by a council employee as though they had been made by him. He says he is so fearful of the Council’s behaviour he has decided to sell his house and move. He seeks compensation from the Council to reflect the loss he will make for a quick sale and he expects disciplinary action to be taken against all parties involved.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Following his report about the presence of vagrants outside a business in his area, Mr X complained to the Council about a member of staff involved in investigating the matter.
6. The Council did not uphold his complaint and noted that he had threatened to have the member of staff removed from their post and used language designed to cause distress. It warned him that as his allegations were unsupported, he had opened himself up to the risk of a civil suit for defamation.
7. We do not investigate every complaint we receive. We are funded by the public purse and have an obligation to use the funds allocated to us in an effective, efficient and economic manner. The outcomes Mr X seeks for his complaint are not those we can recommend (in the case of his request for disciplinary action) nor would recommend (in the case of his request for compensation for any money lost following his decision to move house quickly).
8. Mr X has also complained about contact made by the officer with his place of work. If he is concerned about a possible data breach then it is open to him to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner, the body best placed to consider such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman