Summary: Ms X complains about the manner in which a Council officer spoke to her. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or that an investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says a Council officer spoke to her in a bullying and forceful manner and that the Council has failed to acknowledge how she was left to feel after the conversation.

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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X was telephoned by Officer A who was following up in connection with an enquiry made about a local pest infestation.
6. After the call Ms X complained to the Council about the way she had been spoken to by Officer A who she said had been discriminatory towards her and bullied her because she was a woman.
7. The Council investigated the matter. It found that Officer A had used a local “term of endearment” for which he apologised and accepted such terms should not be used in the workplace. With regard to Ms X’s claim that due to sexual discrimination Officer A had used bullying tactics, it explained that it had no evidence to support this claim, that it was Ms X’s word against Officer A’s word and so it could not uphold this part of her complaint. It did note that Officer A was up to date with equality and diversity training provided by the Council and that he had an exemplary work record.
8. While I understand Ms X is disappointed with the outcome of the Council’s investigation, I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would usefully add to that already undertaken by the Council. Unless there is evidence available to support Ms X’s allegation, it remains her word against that of Officer A and we cannot know now what occurred during the call. The Council and Officer A have already apologised for the use of the term of endearment and an investigation would be unlikely to result in a significantly different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or that an investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman