Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a report that a Council officer made an offensive remark. There is not enough evidence in the way the Council investigated the matter to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X is a solicitor acting for her client, Mr Y.
2. Ms X complains the Council failed to properly investigate Mr Y’s report that a senior Council officer made an antisemitic remark about him. He wants a full investigation by another person and serious consequences for the senior officer if they are guilty of making the remark.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y complained a third party told him that someone at the Council had made an antisemitic remark about him and this is common knowledge throughout the Council. Mr Y was not present and did not hear the remark.
7. The Council solicitor investigated the complaint. They spoke relevant people including:
• Mr Y
• the senior officer alleged to have made the remark ; and
• the officer who allegedly told the third party about the remark.
8. The Council’s report to Ms X outlines how the Council carried out its investigation. It confirms the third party who told Mr Y about the offensive remark declined to provide any information or contribute to the Council’s investigation, despite being asked many times.
9. The officer also interviewed the person who allegedly told the third party about the remark. The officer denies speaking the words attributed to the senior officer.
10. The investigation also entailed searching the Council’s email servers for the offensive remark and the messaging apps of various Council staff. Nothing has been found to support the allegation.
11. The Council solicitor concluded there is inadequate evidence to prove the allegation.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot question a council’s decisions if there was no fault in the way they were reached. I have therefore considered whether the Council carried out an appropriate investigation.
13. From the information we have seen it appears the Council has carried out an appropriate investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council investigated his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman