Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s failure to take action against an officer who swore at him. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says a Council officer swore at him but that the Council will not take any action against him. He has not been listened to and the situation has had a great impact on him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information Mr B provided which included details of his communication with the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. During a conversation with a Council officer concerning works to be carried out at the block of flats where Mr B lives, Mr B says the conversation became heated and that while walking away the officer swore at him.
6. Mr B complained about this to the Council. It asked him for a copy of the sound recording he had made of the conversation but the short recording did not cover the whole conversation and did not cover the end of the conversation or prove that the officer had sworn at him. Contract workers in the vicinity during the conversation said they had not heard the officer swear.
7. The Council told Mr B that due to a lack of corroborating evidence it could not investigate the matter further and that it had no option but to draw a line under his complaint. It told Mr B that the officer in question would continue his work on the project but that Mr B could email the officer’s manager if he had any further concerns.

Assessment

8. I understand Mr B has been upset by the events which took place and believes it is unfair that the Council has relied on him to provide information to support his claim about what the officer said. However, the Council did investigate matters as far as it could. It spoke to contractors and followed up on the sound recording when Mr B said he had made one.
9. Unfortunately for Mr B, there is an absence of corroborating evidence and therefore nothing on which the Council could base taking any action against the officer who has vehemently denied the claim that he swore at Mr B.
10. Mr B has provided confirmation from a neighbour who supports his claim that the officer swore and that she told the Council this. The neighbour therefore supports Mr B’s version of events and the contractors support the officer’s. Mr B has now advised that the sound recording he made did in fact record the officer swearing but that he has not released this to the Council for fear of legal repercussions. It is Mr B’s decision whether he provides this to the Council or not. If he provides it and it supports what he says took place then the Council will decide what would be an appropriate response.
11. An investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome. Moreover, the restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 means we cannot consider disciplinary or personnel matters.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman