Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a complaint he made concerning a local councillor. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s Monitoring Officer’s response to his complaint about a local councillor. The MO incorrectly referred to a “letter of apology” when the apology had been made in the body of an email and not in a letter. Mr X says he has been caused trouble and inconvenience seeking sight of a letter which did not exist and wants a letter of apology from the councillor.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr X and reviewed the information he and the Council provided. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X made a complaint to the Council’s MO about the conduct of a councillor. Included with his complaint was an email Mr X had received from the councillor which had sought to address his concerns in some detail and which the councillor had concluded by stating: “I sincerely hope that I have helped to explain what happened…and I am truly sorry for any offence or distress that I have caused you”.
5. The MO responded by telling Mr X that his complaint would not be pursued and that he had already received a “letter of apology” from the councillor. Mr X contacted the MO to say he had never received a letter and through the Freedom of Information request he made, he found out that the MO had been referring to the email the councillor had already sent instead of an actual letter.

Assessment

6. Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman concerns his dissatisfaction that the MO, instead of referring to the apology being in an email, incorrectly referred to it as a letter of apology and he believes that he should receive an actual letter of apology rather than the one provided in an email.
7. While I understand the use of the phrase “letter of apology” misled Mr X into believing there was a separate document containing a further apology from the councillor, this is not a matter the Ombudsman will investigate.
8. We are funded by the public purse and have an obligation to use the funds allocated to us in an efficient, effective and economic manner. The fault and injustice claimed by Mr X in this case are insufficient to warrant the launching of an investigation by the Ombudsman. Moreover, I note the apology already made to Mr X by the councillor, regardless of its format, appears fulsome and sincere.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman