Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions as regulator of Environmental Health and Health and Safety at Work. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains she sustained life-changing injuries at work. She says the Council, acting as regulator, did not act promptly or investigate properly.
2. She says she has lost confidence that lessons have been learnt and others are now safe. She also says the Council handled her complaint poorly and failed to keep her updated, which meant she had to repeatedly chase for information.
3. She would like the Council to apologise and commit to improved practices in future. She would also like an independent review and compensation that reflects the impact the injury has had on her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
9. Mrs X complained the Council did not investigate properly. The Council’s investigation report shows it considered relevant factors and made recommendations where appropriate. It also clearly explained the reasons for its decisions.
10. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide what action to take and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered appropriate factors and made recommendations for actions where required, I consider it unlikely that we would find fault.
11. Mrs X also complained the investigation was not prompt and the Council’s complaint handling and communication was poor.
12. The Council began its investigation soon after becoming aware of the issue. It explained the investigation was complex. I do not consider there is enough evidence of fault in the way it carried out the investigation to justify further investigation by us. The Council also explained that, because of the complex and sensitive nature of the investigation, it was not always possible to provide updates. We do not usually investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue when we are not investigating the substantive complaint. In any event, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman