Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaints handling or a data breach by an officer because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s complaints handling, including an allegation made about him in a complaint response, and about a data breach by a Council officer. He said the Council’s actions had caused him significant distress.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Complaints handling

5. Mr X complained that officer A had ended a call with him without warning and had failed to keep him updated after he reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) over a lengthy period. He also said the officer had told him to make reports using the ASB Mailbox but was allowing other residents to call him directly.
6. In various complaint responses, the Council provided slightly different accounts for the officer ending the call. In one response, it was alleged Mr X called the officer an idiot, which Mr X denies. In another response, the Council said other officers who witnessed the call, said it had become heated, and the officer had warned Mr X before ending the call. Mr X says the officer did not warn him.
7. There is a conflict of evidence about what happened which we would not be able to resolve, even if we investigated further. Further, whilst I appreciate the inconsistent responses caused Mr X some distress, we do not investigate complaints handling unless we are also investigating the underlying complaint.
8. In its stage 1 complaint response, the Council said Mr X had been warned about verbally aggressive behaviour in a public meeting, which Mr X disputed. Mr X named two independent people who could confirm this had not happened. In its stage 3 response, the Council offered its sincere apologies that his conduct had been called into question. The Council has apologised and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.
9. In relation to ASB reports, the Council confirmed it was asking everyone to make reports using the ASB Mailbox. Although Mr X did raise concerns about a lack of updates following reports, he later said he was not want pursuing that aspect.

Data breach

10. Mr X also complained officer A had disclosed that he had made a complaint in a chat group. In its response to this complaint, the Council:
• Acknowledged there was a data breach;
• Confirmed it had spoken to officer A and correct disciplinary action had been taken;
• Apologised for the breach and paid Mr X £200 for the injustice caused; and
• Explained he could refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
11. The Council has taken appropriate action to investigate, remedy the injustice caused by the data breach and prevent a recurrence. Further investigation by us could not achieve anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman