Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council is at fault in its response to a false allegation made about his dog. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr B wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council is at fault in its response to a false allegation made about his dog.

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
• 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. I have considered what Mr B has said in support of his complaint and the correspondence he has provided. I have also considered his response to my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B says he was visited by a Council officer following a false and malicious allegation about his dog. He complains that the officer put a card through his door but, when spoken to in the street, would not discuss the matter. He complains that the officer’s voice and facial expression were accusatory and that he was effectively treated as being guilty.
6. Mr B made a formal complaint to the Council. He complains that the Council has not upheld the complaint. He wants the Council to suspend and retrain its officer and feed back to the original complainant that it regards her report of the alleged incident as malicious. He also wants the Council to confirm that it has no connection with the complainant giving rise to a conflict of interests.
7. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. The Council says it had a duty to consider the allegation it received and its initial contact with Mr B was to offer him the chance to put his side. That is a reasonable position. As the Ombudsman was not party to the discussion between Mr B and the officer, it is not possible for us to take a view on whether the officer’s manner was as Mr B described. We cannot therefore find that the officer was at fault or that the Council’s response was unreasonable.
8. It is also the case that we cannot achieve the outcome Mr B is seeking. Given that we cannot take a view on the alleged incident, there are no grounds for us to ask the Council to feed back to the complainant, as Mr B asks. Neither can we ask the Council to suspend an officer. By law, personnel matters, such as disciplinary action, fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
9. In the absence of a finding of fault on the Council’s part, there is no basis for us to ask the Council to take any further action, including retraining its officer, or providing Mr B with the information he wants relating to any potential conflict of interest.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr B is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman