Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s handling of a tender, as he could not provide a meaningful remedy or achieve what the complainant seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, to whom I will refer as Mr H, says the Council refused to consider a tender for work from his firm. He considers this is because the person who dealt with it is biased against him because of historical litigation against the Council.

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 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 investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Mr H’s correspondence with the Council.
6. I also sent a draft copy of this decision to each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. In 2010, Mr H successfully sued the Council for defamation. He says this related to public comments made about his firm by a Council officer, to whom I will refer as Ms C. Mr H received substantial damages from the Council as a result.
8. In 2012, after further litigation, Mr H signed a ‘notice of discontinuance’, agreeing not to bring further legal action or a complaint about this or “similar” events.
9. In 2018, Mr H tendered for a Council contract. His application was rejected at an early stage. He says he asked for feedback, through which he discovered Ms C had been involved in the decision.
10. Mr H complained to the Chief Executive of the Council. He said he considered Ms C was biased against him because of their previous involvement, and should have declared a conflict of interest. He asked the Council for £50,000 in compensation for this.
11. The Chief Executive replied to Mr H, saying he had previously agreed not to bring further complaints about the matter and that the Council would not entertain his complaint.

Back to top

Analysis

12. Mr H’s complaint is, fundamentally, about whether a particular Council officer should have been involved in his application.
13. To uphold Mr H’s allegation against Ms C, I would need to find evidence to establish that (a) she was directly responsible for making the decision on his application, and (b) her decision was motivated by her previous conflict with Mr H.
14. However, the Ombudsman investigates administrative fault. He has no power to undertake disciplinary investigations, of the type Mr H’s allegation would require. He cannot decide how the Council should deploy its officers, nor can he decide whether an officer should be subject to disciplinary action.
15. Additionally, while the Ombudsman has the power to recommend financial remedies, these are not ‘compensation’ or ‘damages’ of the type a court might award. They are typically token values intended to reflect a person’s distress or time and trouble caused by administrative fault.
16. We cannot, therefore, achieve the outcome Mr H wants from his complaint, or provide him with a meaningful remedy. I do not seek to dismiss his complaint, but I consider it would be a disproportionate use of resources for the Ombudsman to complete an investigation here.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman