Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that that a council officer tarnished the complainant’s character. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained that a council officer, officer Z, tarnished his character when communicating with a third party Mr B was helping.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Mr B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. When he complained to the Council Mr B said he had been helping people for several years on a voluntary basis at his own expense. He said he had tried to help a third party, Ms C, who was in distress because of the poor condition of her accommodation. Mr B said officer Z asked him to stand back. He complained about what officer Z said about him in an email to Ms C.
8. After Mr B had contacted the Council about Ms C’s case, officer Z emailed him. Officer Z said the Council was investigating the matter. Officer Z asked Mr B not to take any actions which would confuse any line of questioning. The officer said all parties must be interviewed under caution if there is reasonable evidence of criminal activity and the police would appreciate any evidence he may have had. It was not fault for the Council to ask Mr B not to take action which might jeopardise its investigation of Ms C’s case or any subsequent legal action against her landlord. The Council has legal processes it must follow and if it does not, this affects its ability to take formal legal action.
9. The email from officer Z to Ms C said Mr B wants to help but he was not a council officer or solicitor. Officer Z said Mr B had been advised not to knock on doors in this way due to the Coronavirus risks. But Mr B said he never said to Ms C he was a council officer or lawyer. Mr B told us the contents of officer Z’s email badly affected his mental health. He asked the Council for an apology and £5,000 compensation. Mr B told the Council he had already completed civil claim forms if needed.
10. If a person is seeking a ruling on whether there has been defamation (libel or slander) and significant damages, that is a matter for the courts. But taking such proceedings is very costly. It would not be reasonable to expect Mr B to go to court if the costs of doing so would far outweigh the remedy he is seeking. We can, however, consider if there has been administrative fault by the Council.
11. Mr B told us he was accompanied by a translator when he visited Ms C. It is not possible for us to establish exactly what was said at this meeting. The Council’s view was it may have been the case Ms C misunderstood what Mr B had said to her because of the language barrier. But it said it was important for its customer to know the facts. It was not factually incorrect to say Mr B is not a council officer or lawyer so we cannot say there was fault by the Council in this respect.
12. Mr B has told us Ms C still living in poor housing conditions. It is open to her to make a complaint to us in her own right. We can then consider it.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman