Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council redacting the complainant’s comments on an application for tree works, and about its handling of his associated complaint. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has caused the complainant a significant personal injustice, and we will not pursue his concerns about the Council’s complaint process in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council redacted words from the comments he submitted about an application for works to trees. He also says his associated complaint was dealt with by the same officers at each stage of the Council’s complaint process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, 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.

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

3. With regard to the first bullet point, we can consider whether there was fault in the way the Council made its decision. If there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. And in relation to the second and third bullet points, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the Council. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
5. Finally, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the applications for works to the trees, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Council’s redaction policy, as available on the Council's website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council redacted words from his comments on the application.
8. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong, or tell the Council how to operate its services. Instead, we look at whether there is evidence of fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there is insufficient evidence of 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. Here, the Council was entitled to reach a professional judgement on whether the words in Mr X’s comments contravened its policy. I consider there to be insufficient evidence of fault in the way it reached that decision, so we will not investigate the complaint.
10. Furthermore, I am not persuaded the redaction has caused Mr X a significant personal injustice, so we would not investigate the complaint for this reason too. In reaching this view, I am mindful the unredacted comments were available to the officer when making their decision, and I have seen no evidence to suggest the redaction affected the way the relevant planning issues were assessed or the outcome of the application. In addition, I note Mr X lives several hundred metres from the application site.
11. As we have decided not to investigate the substantive matter being complained about, it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate Mr X’s associated concerns about the complaint process in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has caused him a significant personal injustice, and we will not pursue his concerns about the Council’s complaint process in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman