Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a council officer’s behaviour was unprofessional and that the officer made unwarranted criticisms of him. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the actions of a council officer during a visit to the Council’s office. He says the officer’s behaviour was unprofessional and the officer made unwarranted criticisms of him.

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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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. In March 2024, Mr X visited the Council’s office to discuss a case he was supporting a third party with. Mr X complained about the way an officer spoke with him during the visit and said the officer made unwarranted criticisms of him.
6. In response to his complaint, the Council said the officer disputed the allegations Mr X made regarding him raising his voice and criticising Mr X. He said Mr X had been shouting and that the officer asked him to leave. The Council also explained the team leader had heard Mr X shouting and went to speak with him. The team leader asked Mr X to leave the premises when he continued to shout.
7. An investigation is not justified as it is unlikely to lead to any findings or worthwhile outcomes. This is because there is conflicting evidence about what happened during the visit as Mr X denies shouting at the officer. An investigation is also not likely to identify any further evidence that would help to establish what happened during the visit.
8. Mr X provided us with a copy of a voice recording he had of the interaction and says this is evidence he was not shouting. However, Mr X confirmed the recording was started after some interaction with the officer had already taken place. I have listened to the recording and am satisfied the recording starts after the team leader became involved with dealing with Mr X. This means the entire interaction with the officer has not been recorded.
9. Therefore, I remain satisfied there remains conflicting evidence as we would still not be able to say, even on balance, what had happened before Mr X started recording the interaction.
10. Mr X also complained to us about delays in the Council’s handling of a third party’s homeless application. However, the Council has confirmed it has not received a complaint from Mr X about this. Therefore, this complaint is premature to us. It is open to Mr X to raise the complaint to the Council to give them the opportunity to consider and respond to the complaint. If Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s final complaint response, he can raise a new complaint with us.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman