Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about comments made by an elected representative of the Authority as the complaint is made late and there are not good reasons to investigate now. The injustice to the complainant is also not sufficient to warrant our involvement and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about comments made by an elected representative of the Authority at a public meeting in March 2023 which Mr X considered to be insulting and offensive. Mr X felt victimised and unfairly pigeon-holed by the comments. Mr X is unhappy with the Authority’s handling of his complaint and wants to have a face-to-face meeting with the elected representative, a public and personal apology, a withdrawal of the comments and for the elected representative to be reprimanded

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something an authority has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. When we find fault, we can recommend remedies for significant personal injustice, or to prevent future injustice, caused by that fault. We look at organisational fault, not individual professional competence. Decisions about individual’s fitness to practise or work are for the organisations concerned, and for professional regulators, not the Ombudsman. (Local Government Act 1974, s26(1) and s26A(1) as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

Background

7. Mr X complained about comments that were made about people who opposed plans to expand London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) scheme. Mr X complained the comments were insulting as they said that such people were in coalition with COVID deniers and were far-right.
8. The Authority assessed Mr X’s complaint but concluded there had been no breach of its Code of Conduct by the elected representative in question.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The comments in question were made in March 2023. Mr X complained to us in July 2024 and so his complaint is made late to us as the law says we should generally only investigate complaints made to us within a year of the complainant becoming aware of the problem. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have complained to us sooner, and within a year, and as such I do not consider there are good reasons for us to investigate this matter now.
10. In addition, while I recognise Mr X has strong feelings about what was said, I do not consider this equates to a level of injustice that would justify our further involvement. We have limited resources and must direct them to the most serious of cases. I do not consider this to be such a case.
11. It follows that the Council’s decision on the complaint did also not cause Mr X serious personal loss or harm and so we will not investigate.
12. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. We cannot ask the Authority to reprimand individual officers or obtain personal apologies.
13. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part is made late, and he is caused insufficient loss or harm to justify our further action. We also cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman