Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint the Council accused him of defamation in May 2017. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise his discretion and now investigate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complains he received an email from the Chief Executive in May 2017 that accused him of defamation. Mr B says he has been asking the Council for proof of this since then but has not received a satisfactory reply. Mr B also says he has suffered a financial loss of £5000 having to research the matter, write letters and address council meetings. This has caused distress and stress within his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr B provided and the Council’s response to our enquiries. 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

6. Mr B has explained that he attended a council meeting in 2017 and asked questions. He then received an email from the Chief Executive in May 2017, that said: ‘I am deeply concerned with your accusations regarding my professional integrity…and consider these, and earlier comments, to be defamatory. Copying others into your e-mails only adds to the seriousness of the defamation…You appear to be engaged in a prolonged and sustained personal attack on the integrity of Officers of the Council and I am not prepared to tolerate this any longer. I am, therefore, seeking independent legal advice on the actions the Council can take to protect its staff from unwarranted accusations and allegations.’
7. Mr B says he and his contacts found the letter threatening. Mr B has been in contact with the Council since then, asking for information by way of Freedom of Information Act and Subject Access Requests, making complaints, sending ‘hundreds of emails’ and attending meetings. Mr B says the Council has not provided proof that he had ’defamed’ officers.
8. As Mr B’s complaint relates to an email he received in May 2017, the complaint is late and the restriction in paragraph 3 applies. I do not consider there are any good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise his discretion and now investigate this late complaint. This is because the Council had confirmed to Mr B by June 2018 at the latest that it was not taking any action against him. A letter from the Council to Mr B said: ‘In reviewing the email that the Chief Executive sent on 5 May 2017, as Head of Paid Service the Chief Executive has explained what steps she was taking to protect the staff from unwarranted accusations and allegations. I personally do not believe this was threatening and it was not intending to be, that aside I can confirm that there are currently no proceedings being taken against you.’
9. I note Mr B has been in contact with the Council since May 2017 about this matter and he says the Council has only recently considered his complaint. However, even if the Council had sent the email Mr B complains about within the last 12 months, the Ombudsman would still not have investigated the complaint. This is because there is insufficient personal injustice arising from the Chief Executive saying they considered Mr B’s comments to be defamatory to warrant further investigation of the complaint. It has been Mr B’s choice to devote so much time and effort to ongoing contact with the Council when it confirmed it is not taking any action against him over a year ago.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise his discretion and now investigate.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman