Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the alleged conduct of a member of staff. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response, or reach a safe conclusion about what happened.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about the conduct of a member of the Council’s staff at an ice hockey game.

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 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 question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also gave Miss X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss X has complained to the Council about the way a member of its staff spoke to her during the interval of an ice hockey game. Miss X says the member of staff was rude, aggressive, and stopped her children playing in a particular area – despite other children being allowed to play in equivalent areas.
6. The Council has responded to complaints from Miss X. It said CCTV footage had been viewed and witness statements taken. The Council said Miss X’s behaviour was aggressive and threatening, and that she violated the personal space of the member of staff. A witness has said Miss X threatened the member of staff. The Council has said if Miss X were to behave in the same way again, it would consider banning her from the venue.
7. Miss X has produced a statement from her own witness in support of her version of events. Miss X disputes the Council’s findings.
8. The role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate, we need to consider what an investigation could achieve.
9. It is clear there is a disagreement about what happened during the event in question. The Council has viewed CCTV footage and spoken with witnesses. This is the process the Ombudsman would expect a council to follow. Based on the evidence available it has decided Miss X’s behaviour was unacceptable.
10. The Ombudsman was not present when the disagreement took place, and in the absence of further information from independent witnesses, it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response. I do not think we could ever reach a safe conclusion about what exactly happened. It is also not our role to say what action, if any, should be taken against a council employee. This is a decision for the Council as the employer.
11. On balance, I do not see what an investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve, and so an investigation is not appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response, or reach a safe conclusion about what happened.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman