Summary: Mr X complains the Council refuses to explain why he was given conflicting information about a highway drain clearance. He also says an officer was flippant towards him. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint as we do not consider Mr X has suffered sufficient personal injustice which warrants our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I will call Mr X, complains the Council:
• has not explained why it gave him conflicting information about when a highway drain will be cleared
• emailed him when he specifically asked for a response in writing; and
• says an officer was flippant when dealing with him.
2. He says the Council has lied to him and he finds this annoying. He wants an explanation and apology.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council’s responses to him. He commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Council that he has been given conflicting information about when a highway drain will be cleared. He also complaint the officer he spoke to was ‘flippant’.
6. The Council wrote to Mr X. It explained that has more than 180,000 gullies to clear each year. Exact timescales cannot be given because of external pressures throughout the year such as emergency work or staffing levels. The senior officer who responded to Mr X confirms he listened to a recording of his call to the Council and did not find the officer dealing with Mr flippant. However, he apologised if Mr X felt this. The officer also noted the officer asked Mr X if he wanted a letter or an email. Mr X responded “in writing”. No specific request for a letter was noted, therefore an email was sent. The Council apologised that staff failed to clarify his specific preference for a letter.

Back to top

Final decision

7. I will not investigate this complaint. I understand Mr X has found his dealings with the Council to be annoying. However, The Ombudsman is publicly funded and must use such funds carefully. I do not consider this to be sufficient injustice to warrant the expense of an Ombudsman investigation. Also, the Council has apologised for sending an email rather than a letter in response to his request for a written response, and if Mr X found the officer flippant. Therefore, I consider it unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman