Summary: Mr B complains about the actions of a Council officer who dealt with him when he reported an environmental health matter. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council; personnel matters fall outside our jurisdiction and there are no outstanding issues which warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council officer who dealt with him when he reported an environmental health matter showed a poor attitude and later lied about contacting him by telephone to inform him of the outcome of the Council’s investigations into the matter.

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

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr B and reviewed the information he and the Council provided. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B contacted the Council about an environmental health issue which arose in connection with a purchase he had made from a shop.
6. The officer dealing with the case, Officer X, investigated the matter and liaised with the shop concerned. The Council’s records show on 7 February 2019 Officer X telephoned Mr B to advise him of the outcome of the investigation and to check that his details could be passed on to the retailer who wanted to write to him and subsequently did so.
7. Mr B made a complaint about Officer X, detailing what he saw as a poor attitude and disputing that he had been called on 7 February. The Council addressed his complaint under its complaints procedure but did not uphold it. It confirmed the investigation had been carried properly in accordance with its procedures and that its data base had been checked and a note recorded on it to confirm Officer X had telephoned Mr B. It did, however, say it would look into whether a formal written follow up should be sent after a call.

Assessment

8. Mr B says, in effect, he has been called a liar and his integrity has been called into account. He is adamant he did not receive the call from Officer X and has proof from his phone company to support his position. The Council’s records, a copy of which Mr B has now been provided with, show Officer X did call him on 7 February.
9. However, even if we were to accept the call was not made, Mr B has been informed of the outcome of the investigation and there are no outstanding matters which fall within our jurisdiction and which warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
10. Personnel and disciplinary matters fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and, by law, we have no discretion to look at them.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council; personnel matters fall outside our jurisdiction and there are no outstanding issues which warrant a formal investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman