Summary: Mr X complains the Council has allowed its officers to carry out a vendetta against him and the trade organisation he represents by making malicious and defamatory statements. We will not investigate the complaint because earlier complaints made to us have already been investigated and if Mr X believes he has been defamed he can take the Council to court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says over the years the Council has allowed its officers to carry out a vendetta against him and the trade body he represents by making statements against his character which have been malicious and defamatory.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X. I gave him the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Over the years Mr X has brought to the Ombudsman a number of complaints against the Council covering a variety of issues relating to the business of the trade body he represents.
6. These complaints have been considered and decided and one complaint is currently under investigation.

Assessment

7. In his latest complaint, Mr X says the Council has made malicious and defamatory statements against him over the years in the hope of influencing our decision-making and that this first began in 2018.
8. Mr X’s past complaints have already been considered and decided and they will not be reopened. If Mr X has information or comments relevant to his complaint which is currently under investigation, he can provide this to the investigator dealing with the case.
9. Mr X claims statements made by the Council against him are defamatory. If Mr X wants a legal determination on this claim he can take the Council to court. As he has this alternative remedy available which we would reasonably expect him to use, this matter falls outside our jurisdiction and will not be investigated.
10. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X has referred me to past complaints to the Ombudsman he either brought or was involved in, but I had already had sight of these complaints. We will not investigate as a separate complaint Mr X’s allegations about Council behaviour from the past.
11. Mr X says “the maladministration was not malicious or defamatory as you state” but these words are taken from the complaint letter he sent us dated 3 February 2021 when he says the Council has made “malicious and defamatory statements against my character”. If Mr X believes he has been defamed, he can ask the courts to determine the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because earlier complaints made to us have already been investigated and if Mr X believes he has been defamed he can take the Council to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman