Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged poor communication by the Council. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about poor communication by the Council after he made an enquiry about paint. He wants the Council to improve how it communicates with people.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X contacted the Council to find out how he could dispose of some paint. He did not get a reply so he sent a form a week later asking someone to investigate. An officer called the same day. She explained he needed to contact the council that manages the recycling centre to make arrangements for the paint. She offered the phone number for the other council.
5. The officer terminated the call. The Council says this is due to Mr X’s conduct during the call. The Council says Mr X continued to ask the same questions about the paint.
6. Mr X complained to the Council about several issues. These include the lack of a response to the initial enquiry, the officer calling on a mobile and not giving her identity, and not calling back in response to his message after she ended the call.
7. In response the Council apologised for not responding to the initial enquiry and said it did not know what had happened. It said the officer rang on a mobile because they are often out and about. The Council explained the officer provided the correct information about the paint and terminated the call due to Mr X’s conduct. She did not call back as she had nothing more to add. The Council repeated the arrangements for using the site and getting rid of paint.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It is not known what happened to Mr X’s initial enquiry but, a week later, the Council correctly explained the arrangements for using the site. It also apologised and explained why the officer terminated the call and used a mobile. I acknowledge Mr X is dissatisfied with the response but there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
9. I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. The Council provided Mr X with the information he needed about the paint. And, while it did not answer the issue of whether the officer should have provided her name, this does not represent a degree of injustice requiring an investigation. I appreciate Mr X says the Council’s communication practices are poor but, again, this has not caused an injustice which requires an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman