Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a letter Ms X received from the Council. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about a letter the Council sent her after she raised concerns about a problem at her property. She says the letter was threatening, included false allegations, and caused her distress and reputational damage.
2. Ms X is also dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of her complaint about the letter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X contacted the Council about a problem affecting her property. This statement does not give more details of the problem, to protect the anonymity of those involved. The Council considered some of these concerns under its powers for dealing with environmental problems. Local police also had some involvement.
8. The Council later sent Ms X a letter advising her, among other things, not to misuse public services to manage a civil dispute.
9. Ms X complained about the letter. She said it was threatening, included false allegations, and caused her distress and reputational harm. The Council maintained the letter was appropriate in the circumstances.
10. The Council has no more involvement in the problem at Ms X’s property. Therefore, any injustice in this complaint relates to the content of the Council’s letter.
11. I have reviewed the Council’s letter. The Council said it may take further action if it found that future complaints were a misuse of public services. However, there is no evidence it has taken any further action. There is also no indication the Council shared the letter outside of its service.
12. I accept that Ms X found the letter distressing. However, I do not consider the injustice to be significant enough to justify an investigation – particularly as there is no evidence of significant reputational harm or further action by the Council. Therefore, I will not investigate this aspect of Ms X’s complaint.
13. Ms X is also dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of her complaint, which she says was delayed and inadequate. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Therefore, I will not investigate the Council’s handling of Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman