Summary: There was no fault with the Council’s investigation into Mr X’s complaint that he was the victim of a homophobic attack.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant here as Mr X. Mr X says the Council failed to acknowledge he was the victim of a homophobic attack. He says the Council did not believe he was the subject of a homophobic or hate incident.
2. Mr X says the Council delayed its response to his complaint about the incident and this meant the Police could not prosecute the alleged perpetrators of the hate crime within the statutory time limits.
3. Mr X says the Council’s investigating officer disclosed confidential information about him to a witness.
4. Mr X says the Council’s alleged failings caused him to suffer anxiety and depression.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered Mr X’s complaint form and the background information he and the Council provided. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council and invited the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Mr X was a long standing member of a council run leisure centre. In April 2019, Mr X says he was subjected to homophobic abuse by another user. Mr X also refers to another incident involving another user.
9. Mr X complained about the incidents to the Council in September 2019. Mr X says he did not complain earlier because he was depressed about the attack. Prior to complaining, he was supported by his GP and health professionals. Mr X says a police community support officer went to his home in August 2019. He says he provided the same evidence on the incident to the Police as well as the Council.
10. The Council met with Mr X in September and October 2019. Mr X provided the Council with his account of the incident as well as a statement from another party who witnessed the incident.
11. The Council then met with the alleged perpetrators of the abuse in November 2019. It responded to the complaint in December 2019.
12. The Council said it had not found conclusive evidence for sanctions to be taken against the individuals involved. The individuals concerned in the incidents were warned about their behaviour and the possibility of sanctions should there be proven incidents of homophobia or bullying. The Council said it could not determine whether a hate crime had been committed as that was a matter for the Police.
13. Although it did not conclude homophobic comments had been made by the two users Mr X complained about, the Council decided to take implement certain measures in the gym to highlight its code of conduct and improve staff training.
14. Mr X says the Council’s investigating officer breached confidentiality because he asked a witness whether she knew anything about Mr X’s contact with the Police. The Council’s response to this ground of complaint simply stated there was no evidence the officer breached confidentiality when he met with the witness.

Finding

The Council failed to acknowledge Mr X was the victim of a homophobic attack & The Council did not believe he was the subject of a homophobic or hate incident

15. The Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaint show it accepted Mr X was negatively affected by the incidents. The individuals concerned were warned about their behaviour. The evidence also shows the leisure centre management met with Mr X and offered him support.
16. That the Council did not conclude the comments or actions of the two alleged perpetrators were homophobic does not lead me to find fault with its decision. I am satisfied the Council properly investigated the complaint. Having investigated the complaint, it was for it to reach its own judgement on the matter. It is not now for the Ombudsman to substitute his own judgement for that of the Council as long as there was no fault in the process leading up to the judgement.

The Council delayed its response to his complaint about the incident and this meant the Police could not prosecute the alleged perpetrators of the hate crime within the statutory time limits.

17. Mr X complained to the Council in September 2019 which was either 5 or 6 months after the incident. The Council then sent a complaint response in December 2019. But Mr X met with the Police in August 2019.
18. I do not find any alleged delay in the Council’s complaint investigation should have had any impact on the Police’s own investigation. The Council’s consideration of a complaint about the conduct of the two individuals does not affect an investigation of a crime by the Police. The Police informed Mr X that it was out of time to prosecute the individuals involved here. But I do not find that the Police were prevented from acting against the individuals involved because of action or inaction by the Council.
19. As to the length of time taken by the Council to investigate the complaint, the Council explained to Mr X that it needed the time to obtain all the evidence and interview all the individuals involved. There is no set statutory timescale or guidance against which to judge the time taken by the Council to investigate complaints of this nature. So, I cannot now refer to a breach of a set time limit. However, I find the time taken by the Council was reasonable and necessary to conclude its enquiries.

The Council’s investigating officer disclosed confidential information about him to a witness.

20. I do not have a corroborating evidence of the conversation between the witness and the officer. So, I cannot now determine whether the officer disclosed confidential information. But from Mr X’s submission that the officer asked the witness whether she knew anything about his contact with the police, I do not find the officer breached confidentiality. The witness was clearly aware of the incident that she was reporting to the Council and so would possibly have been interviewed by the Police.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I closed this complaint because I did not find fault by the Council in the matters raised here by Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman