Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation into his employer’s precautions to reduce the spread of COVID-19. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint about his employer’s precautions to keep workers safe from COVID-19. He says the situation caused him stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

Background

6. To tackle the spread of COVID-19 in workplaces the government encouraged employers to complete risk assessments which reflect public health regulations and guidelines. The assessments were required to identify sources of possible transmission, those most at risk, the likelihood of exposure and the controls needed to reduce the risk. Where an employer has failed to take adequate measures to protect their employees from the risk of catching COVID-19 the Council has some enforcement powers under health and safety legislation including the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
7. Mr X says he came into close contact with a colleague at work who tested positive for COVID-19. He was not contacted by NHS Test and Trace but was told to self-isolate by his employer. Mr X took a COVID-19 test, which was negative, and his employer told him to return to work after five days. Mr X believes he should have been told to self-isolate for 10 days and is concerned his employer’s practices may not be safe.
8. The Council investigated Mr X’s concerns but was satisfied with his employer’s advice and the measures it had in place to deal with employee contact in the workplace. Mr X believes it failed to consider the matter properly.

Back to top

My assessment

9. 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.
10. I note Mr X found the situation stressful but do not consider the Council’s actions caused him significant injustice. Mr X reported concerns about his employer to the Council several months after returning to work and there can therefore be no suggestion its conclusions led to Mr X contracting COVID-19 or passing it to others.
11. I have considered whether there is sufficient public interest in this matter to warrant further investigation but I have decided there is not. The government’s rules on self-isolation have changed since the events referred to in this complaint and Mr X was not legally obliged to self-isolate as he had no contact from NHS Test and Trace. The substantive issue in this case concerns Mr X’s employer’s interpretation of government guidance rather than the Council’s investigation into Mr X’s concerns and we have no jurisdiction to investigate the actions of his employer.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman