Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the behaviour of a Council Environmental Health Officer who visited Mr X’s business premises. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the behaviour of an Environmental Health Officer who visited his premises to carry out an inspection. Mr X says the officer was condescending and unprofessional and that despite having only a temporary problem with his boiler, this was taken into account when his business was given a low rating score.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response the complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. A Council Environmental Health Officer visited Mr X’s business premises to carry out an inspection. Unfortunately, a problem with the boiler meant that at the time of the inspection there was no hot water available and this fact was reflected in the rating score given to Mr X.
6. Mr X complained to the Council about the behaviour of the Officer who he had found to be unprofessional and condescending. The Council investigated and spoke to the Officer concerned. It addressed the concerns Mr X had raised and apologised for any offence taken and inconvenience caused. It explained that a re-score was not possible on a compliance visit but that Mr X could apply and pay for a re-score visit.
7. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and while Mr X was clearly unhappy with the inspection and rating score he was given, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation. Aspects of the Officer’s behaviour with which Mr X took exception were addressed by the Council. An investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to usefully add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman