Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about an email an officer sent and its decision that Mr B is an unreasonably persistent complainant. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council or a significant personal injustice to Mr B.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complains a Council officer sent an email to an officer at a different council that contained untruthful and inaccurate statements. Mr B further complains the Council has refused to investigate his resulting complaint and has said his contact is unreasonably persistent. Mr B wants the Ombudsman to tell the Council to reply to his complaint.

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 would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information Mr B provided when he made his complaint. I sent a draft decision to Mr B and considered the comments he made in reply before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B used to work for Council A. He complained to Council A’s monitoring officer about the actions of the leader of the Council and then complained the monitoring officer (Officer Y) at the Council had failed to properly investigate. Mr B says Officer Y is corrupt and forced him to take early retirement.
5. Officer Y moved to Worcester City Council (‘the Council’). Mr B sent correspondence to councillors, senior officers and the press alleging Officer Y was corrupt. He asked the Council to investigate. The Council declined, with Officer X writing to Mr B to say the allegations were unsubstantiated and related to historic matters at Council A. Officer Y left the Council within a year.
6. Over the course of the next 3 years, Mr B made a series of Freedom of Information requests to the Council relating to its decision not to investigate Officer Y’s conduct. He is aware the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about the Council’s handling of Freedom of Information requests because they are matters that have been considered by the Information Commissioner and by appeal to the First Tier Tribunal.
7. Officer X moved to Council C. Mr B wrote to all councillors at Council C to say Officer X was corrupt because they had failed to properly investigate his complaints of corruption against Officer Y. Council C wrote to Worcester City Council to ask for comments.
8. Officer Z at Worcester City Council replied to Council C. They sent an email, addressed to one named person and providing the Council’s response to Mr B’s allegations against Officer X. Mr B says the response contained inaccurate information and he made a complaint to the Council. The Council has refused to investigate this complaint and has told Mr B it considers his contact to be unreasonably persistent.
9. While Mr B is unhappy with the way the Council has dealt with this matter, the Ombudsman will not investigate his complaint. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault or a significant personal injustice to Mr B.
10. The Council sent the email to Council C in response to a request for information. This was prompted by Mr B contacting all councillors at Council C and making allegations against Officer X. It was not fault for the Council to respond to Council C’s enquiry.
11. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to draw any conclusions about whether Mr B is ‘unreasonably’ persistent, as the Council describes him, or ‘reasonably’ persistent as Mr B describes himself. It is for the Council to decide how best to manage its resources and to decide whether to place restrictions on the communication it receives from individuals.
12. Even if the Ombudsman could say the Council had acted with fault in describing Mr B as an ‘unreasonably persistent complainant’ and declining to respond to his complaint, this has not caused Mr B a significant personal injustice.
13. Mr B does not live in the Council’s area. Any restriction on his communication or decision not to respond to his complaints does not impact on Mr B’s access to services. Mr B’s sole reason for being in contact with the Council initially was to raise a complaint about an officer (Officer Y). Officer Y left the Council’s employment over three years ago. It is clear Mr B does not consider the matter resolved, but there is nothing more the Ombudsman can achieve for him by investigating this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council or a significant personal injustice to Mr B.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman