Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has not properly considered his conduct complaint that a councillor sent an email about him containing misleading information. There is insufficient injustice and nothing to achieve by investigation. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the underlying noise nuisance actions which are outside jurisdiction because Mr X used his right of appeal to a court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has not properly dealt with his standards complaint against a former councillor. Mr X says in 2018 the councillor sent an internal email to an officer, and others, regarding a noise nuisance complaint against him. Mr X says the email spread misleading and inaccurate information about him. It wrongly states he had ‘failed to attend a suggested mediation meeting’. Mr X says the councillor acted for the neighbour and put pressure on the Council to act against him. He did so without asking Mr X for his side of the story.

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 someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Mr X’s information and comments and discussed his complaints with him by telephone. I have obtained from the Council the correspondence relating to this standards complaint and our related noise nuisance complaint (19 013 068).

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X discovered the email he complains about in 2019 following a subject access request. On 16 August 2018 the then councillor sent an internal email to the noise nuisance case officer. The email was copied to other officers and members. The email notes Mr X was due to attend the Council office to hear its recordings of the noise. It says Mr X failed to attend a suggested mediation meeting. It asks the officer to tell the councillor of the outcome of Mr X’s meeting with the Council and, if he does not attend, the next action.
7. On 12 December 2019 Mr X emailed the Council and told it that he had checked with the mediation service and that at the time of the offending email it had not made an appointment for a meeting. Mr X says: ‘I then decided to cancel the mediation process because of my neighbour’s behaviour’.
8. In late 2019 the Council replied to Mr X’s standards complaint against the former councillor. It says there is insufficient evidence to warrant a formal investigation. It considers the councillor was acting in his ‘representative capacity’, not on council business, when writing on behalf of the neighbour. It advises Mr X that he can complain to the Information Commissioner about a breach of data protection and, if it is found at fault, he may contact it again.
9. Mr X tells me he has complained to the Information Commissioner who is considering the handling of his personal information.

Analysis

10. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint for the following reasons:
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to formally investigate the councillor’s actions.
12. There is no injustice caused to Mr X by the decision not to formally investigate the conduct of the councillor.
13. There is nothing to achieve by investigation:
1. the content of the email and the actions of the councillor are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. As explained on the noise nuisance complaint, the Ombudsman is barred from investigating the nuisance case because Mr X used his right of appeal to court (see paragraph 3 above).
2. Mr X complains about a person who is no longer a councillor.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has not properly considered his conduct complaint that a councillor sent an email about him containing misleading information. There is insufficient injustice and nothing to achieve by investigation. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the underlying noise nuisance actions because Mr X used his right of appeal to a court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman