Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a Council officer’s actions during a visit to her home. This is because it is unlikely a further investigation by this office could add to the response already provided via the Council’s own investigation of the matter.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the actions of a Council officer who attended her home in relation to squirrels in her loft. She says the officer was rude, abrupt and dismissive and failed to take proper care of her property as he did not wear shoe covers. She complains the officer left without giving her any advice, information or guidance. Mrs X also complains the officer commented to her husband that he should seek an appointment with his GP, implying he was mentally unwell. She says the Council later falsely claimed her husband was aggressive to the officer and used this to justify the officer’s behaviour.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X complained to the Council about the Council officer’s actions during a visit to her home, as set out in paragraph one, above.
6. The Council investigated. It took account of the information Mrs X provided as well as the officer’s account of the visit. It said the officer reported that a male at the property became aggressive during his visit. As a result of this, he left the property before providing further information to Mrs X. He said he carried shoe covers to use if asked, but Mrs X had not asked him to use them. He did not recall the alleged comment towards Mrs X’s husband.
7. The Council told Mrs X that due to lack of evidence it was unable to reach a reliable conclusion in relation to the actions of the officer during the visit, but that it had raised her concerns with the relevant manager. It provided Mrs X with information on steps she could take in relation to the squirrel issue. It explained it does not offer a squirrel treatment service to private residents.
8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely a further investigation of the matter by this office could add in any meaningful way to the response already provided via the Council’s own investigation. Both parties have given their account of what happened and what was said during the visit and these recollections clearly differ. I have no reason to doubt either party’s recollections. It is very unlikely that a further investigation would lead to either party changing their recollection of events now. The available information has already been considered via the Council’s investigation and there is nothing further we could add were we to also investigate. I do not see that we could reliably reconcile the differing accounts further to the response already provided by the Council. As a result, it would not be a good use of limited public funds for us to also investigate.
9. Mrs X also complains about the Council’s handling of her complaint. We do not consider complaint handling issues in isolation where we are not also considering the substantive matter. This is because it is not a good use of public resources to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is unlikely a further investigation of the matter by this office could add to the response already provided via the Council’s previous investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman