Summary: Mr X complains an officer was rude to him at public meeting. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains a Council officer was rude to him at a public meeting and refused to answer his questions. He says after he complained about this, the officer misrepresented the events and the Council have failed to investigate the matter properly.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Council and its responses. He commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X attended a public meeting held by the Council. He says during the meeting he was asking an officer questions when he rudely said that he was not answering any more of his questions and then walked away.
5. Following Mr X’s complaint, the officer also wrote to him, recounting his recollection of events and apologising that he could not answer Mr X’s questions.
6. Mr X disputes the officer’s version of events. The officer’s manager and service director met him to discuss his concerns. The Council says it sought to reassure him that his comments and concerns would be fully considered by the Council in drawing up any future plans. It also offered him the opportunity to meet again, to discuss any plans coming forward.
7. Mr X remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint. The Council’s final response advised it could not discover exactly what was said at the meeting. But it apologised that he was dissatisfied and has noted his concerns.

Assessment

8. I understand Mr X considers the officer was rude and the Council’s apology is not sincere. He does not consider the Council has investigated his complaint because it only interviewed him and the officer concerned. It did not interview any eye-witnesses to the incident. However, I do not consider that he has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation by the Ombudsman. Also, the Ombudsman would not consider it a good use of our limited resources to begin an investigation purely to obtain another apology. There is no other result that he could reasonably seek.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not investigate this complaint because I do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement. Nor do I consider it a good use of our limited resources purely to obtain another apology.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman