Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the contents of an email written by a Council officer. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the response already provided via the Council’s investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the contents of an email written by a Council officer. Mr X says the officer’s comments about him in the email were derogatory and defamatory.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. 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 would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided in his complaint. I also considered the complaint correspondence which we requested from the Council. I sent Mr X a draft of my decision and invited his comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained about a Council officer’s comments about him in an email. The email was sent in reply to one Mr X had sent about a licensing matter. In it, the officer disputed an assertion Mr X had made in his email. She said it was not the first time Mr X had misquoted a Council officer and she was responding to correct what was, at best, his misunderstanding. The officer sent her email reply only to those people already copied into the email exchange.
6. Mr X complained the email could cause damage to his business and his standing with the police. A police officer was copied into the email, and he deals with them regularly in his work.
7. The Council investigated and interviewed the officer involved. The officer said she did not make the comment Mr X attributed to her in his earlier email. So, she had replied to correct this and copied it into the people already included in the email chain. The officer said this was not the first occasion she believed Mr X had misquoted a Council officer. She was concerned Mr X’s comments had previously resulted in others being misled but her email did not intend to suggest he was a liar.
8. Considering the context of the officer’s email, the Council found her form of words to be reasonable.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add significantly, if at all, to the response already provided via the Council’s investigation.
10. The Council has fully investigated the matter and has explained why the officer replied in the way she did. The officer was entitled to respond to a comment she felt had been incorrectly attributed to her. I note Mr X’s concerns about the officer’s comments but I can see nothing in the content of her email to suggest it would cause Mr X a significant personal injustice in the way suggested.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman