Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the death of the complainant’s brother. The matter has been considered by a coroner at an inquest. We are unlikely to find other fault by the Council has caused the complainant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained the Council did not properly consider issues relating to the death of his brother. In part, he believes action by the Council may have prevented the events leading to what happened and could prevent something similar in the future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained;
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint. Mr B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. A coroner conducted an inquest into the death of Mr B’s brother and came to a conclusion about the cause of his death. We cannot question the outcome of the inquest or the coroner’s decision.
6. The Council was represented at the inquest and it was for the coroner to consider any issues relating to its involvement in what happened. It is evident the coroner did not raise any questions about the Council’s actions.
7. Mr B has also raised concerns about the Council’s actions following his brother’s death. He believes the Council has not taken action to prevent a similar situation arising in future.
8. The Council did not ignore Mr B’s concerns but was not persuaded action was necessary. This was a matter for the Council to decide. Further, without belittling Mr B’s concerns, the Council’s actions or inaction would not cause him personal injustice that would justify our involvement. .

Back to top

Final decision

9. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. We could not look at any issue relating to what happened to Mr B’s brother because it has been considered by a coroner. We could not, therefore, achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr B. Later actions by the Council have not caused Mr B injustice that would justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman