Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about alleged fraudulent activity by a Council- appointed contractor and the Council’s handling of his complaint about the matter. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’ actions. The Police are better placed to investigate allegations of fraudulent activity. It he considers the Council liable for financial losses, he can take the matter to court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take appropriate action following his report of fraudulent activity by a Council-appointed contractor. He says this matter has caused him distress, financial loss and he has lost trust in the Council. He wants the Council to investigate, instruct the contractor to complete further remedial works and compensate him for his financial losses.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In its complaint responses, the Council told Mr X set out how it had considered his reports of fraud by the contractor. It said its investigation had concluded that the defects identified were procedural failures, rather than evidence of deliberate falsification or illegality. Its position was that they did not meet the threshold to be considered fraudulent and that it would not take further action.
8. We will not investigate this as there is insufficient evidence of fault of how the Council has considered this matter. It has appropriately investigated Mr X’s concerns, but decided not to take further action. This is a decision the Council is entitled to reach. Although I acknowledge Mr X disagrees with the Council’s conclusions, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered the matter, so we cannot question the decision reached.
9. If Mr X disagrees with the Council’s position, it is open to him to report the matter to the Police. The Police are the appropriate body to consider allegations of fraud, whether any allegation meets the criminal threshold and what action they should take, if any. We do not investigate allegations of crime so are not an appropriate body to consider this complaint.
10. If Mr X considers the Council liable for his financial losses and that it should pay him compensation, it is also open to him to take the matter to court. Only the courts can determine whether the Council is liable for his losses and whether it should pay him damages.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. The Police are better placed to investigate allegations of fraud and, if he considers the Council liable for financial losses, he can take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman