Summary: Mrs C complains about the way the Council runs its Health and Well-being Board meetings. Mrs C says people suffer from poor strategies and policies as a result and the Council is wasting public money. The Ombudsman has decided not to investigate this complaint further as Mrs C has not suffered a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complains about the Council's Health and Well-being Board meetings. Mrs C says the meetings do not answer questions raised in emails or allow people to participate in meetings or strategy work. Mrs C further says the meetings promise public engagement but exclude people. Mrs C says because of the Council's fault, people suffer from poor strategies and policies and the Council is wasting public money.

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:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the papers provided by Mrs C and discussed the complaint with her. I have explained my draft decision to Mrs C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council is responsible for setting up and leading the HWBB which is a formal committee of the Council. Mrs C has attended the meetings for several years.
8. Mrs C has provided the Ombudsman with a selection of emails she has sent to the Council following meetings which contain feedback and suggestions about the Council could improve them. Mrs C has also sought information under the Freedom of Information Act about the cost of some Council projects, details of the ‘for profit’ organisations it is working with and salary information.
9. Mrs C says the Council’s responses to her emails are not clear and do not acknowledge the problems in the mental health system or the steps needed to solve them. In particular, Mrs C wants the Council to accept questions at the end of the meeting which have not been registered and to ensure it puts aside enough time to discuss issues rather than follow a rigid protocol. Mrs C says her emailed written feedback after meetings is how she wants to register her concerns and these should be discussed at future meetings. Mrs C wants the Council to consider other models and systems to involve people and be more open. Mrs C considers the information often provided to the HWBB does not represent her or others lived experience.
10. The Council has confirmed to Mrs C it holds the HWBB in public and members of the public can attend. The published agenda sets out that members of the public can register to speak to comment on agenda items or to raise issues. The Council requires speakers to provide a brief outline of the issue in writing or by email before the meeting with a cut-off time of 12pm the day before the meeting. This procedure is set out in the terms of reference for the meetings and the Council’s Constitution.
11. The Council says it sends Mrs C an agenda ahead of the meeting and invites her to register to speak and sends her a copy of the minutes. The Council says it would accommodate any requests for reasonable adjustments to its Committee Officer. The Council has offered to meet Mrs C to discuss her concerns and to check if there are any barriers preventing her from participating in the meetings in accordance with its procedure and, if so, whether it could make any adjustments.
12. Mrs C also complained to the Council about not being invited to a Health and Care Plan event. The Council explained the organiser had wanted to invite local people not previously engaged and were using a specialist organisation to recruit local people in line with its local population demographic and space was limited. Mrs C was subsequently invited to attend and attended the same event at a different location.
13. Mrs C has suggested the Council’s treatment of her emailed written feedback after meetings does not meet equalities legislation. Mrs C says this is how she wants to register her concerns and her emails should be discussed at future meetings. I have read the selection of emails provided by Mrs C which contain a significant amount of general comment and the Council’s replies.
14. 
    I appreciate it might be disappointing if Mrs C feels some of her questions are not being answered and that she spends time and effort in trying to engage in the meetings. However, the Council has provided replies to Mrs C’s emails and the published procedure to raise issues is to register and provide a brief written outline ahead of the next meeting.
15. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the Council.
16. We will also not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider political or community campaign. In these cases, concerns may be better addressed to their local councillor or MP rather than the Ombudsman.
17. Mrs C has confirmed she is able to attend the HWBB meetings and make her voice heard and the Council’s actions have not had a particular impact on her. In these circumstances, I do not consider Mrs C has suffered a significant personal injustice to warrant the continued use of the Ombudsman’s limited resources.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have ended my investigation because:
1. the Ombudsman cannot investigate the part of Mrs C’s complaint about the use of public money as this is caught by the restriction outlined at paragraph 3 above;
2. it would be reasonable for Mrs C to refer any complaint about the Council’s response to her FOI requests to the Information Commissioner; and
3. Mrs C has not suffered a significant personal injustice from the remaining elements of her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman