Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about an inappropriate comment made by a council officer. This is because we could not add anything meaningful to the Council’s own investigation, and because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant seeks.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr P.
2. Mr P complains the Council has not properly investigated his complaint, about an inappropriate comment made by a council officer. Mr P says that there are inconsistencies in the Council’s investigation, that his complaint was not taken seriously, and that the Council has failed to draw a conclusion on the complaint. Mr P seeks a “transparent disciplinary” process for the officer at the centre of the allegation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I reviewed Mr P’s complaint to the Council, and the Council’s responses.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. In December 2022 Mr P alleged a council officer had made a religious and racially insensitive comment during a meeting at a Council facility.
8. The Council investigated Mr P’s allegation at both stages of its complaints process. It found, on the balance of probabilities, the officer had made the alleged comment and agreed it was offensive and insensitive, although it did not agree it was motivated by racism. It recommended the officer be subject to the Council’s disciplinary procedure, and that it should arrange training on equality issues for relevant staff members.
9. After further comments by Mr P, the Council reviewed its stage 2 investigation and carried out some further interviews, but reached substantially the same conclusion.
10. Mr P then referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

11. Mr P complains the Council failed to take his complaint seriously and did not draw a conclusion.
12. I do not share this view. The Council’s stage 2 investigation was extremely thorough, considering a wide range of relevant legislation and guidance, and conducting interviews with those involved. It covered all details of the allegation in depth. The investigation also led to Mr P’s complaint being upheld, albeit the Council did not agree with Mr P’s allegation the officer’s motive had been racist. I am entirely satisfied the Council took Mr P’s complaint very seriously, and it is clear it did draw a conclusion.
13. I note Mr P says there were some inconsistencies in the Council’s findings and believes the investigation should be repeated. Whether or not there were any inconsistencies in the findings, the fact remains the Council upheld the complaint. I cannot see what benefit it could bring to Mr P for the investigation to be repeated, especially after the Council has already, at Mr P’s request, reviewed once the extremely detailed findings it made.
14. We do not investigate every complaint we receive, and one reason we will decline to investigate a complaint is where doing so would add nothing of significance to any investigation which has already been completed. I am satisfied that applies here.
15. Further to this, we also could not achieve Mr P’s desired outcome from the complaint, which is for the officer to be subject to a ‘transparent’ disciplinary procedure. We are prevented by law from involving ourselves in personnel matters, which includes disciplinary proceedings, so this is not something we can achieve. In addition, we would not expect the Council to disclose to a third party (which Mr P is) the outcome of any disciplinary procedure against one of its officers, as this is personal information which is subject to data protection.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman