Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s error in wrongly referring to her husband as “the late” Mr X. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mrs X, says the Council wrongly referred to her husband as having passed away in a letter it sent to her. She says it provided no explanation or apology for this and that this matter has caused her extreme distress. She seeks an apology, reassurance this error could not happen again and some compensation to recognise its fault

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 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

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mrs X and the Council, including its responses to her complaint. I gave Mrs X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Due to an administrative error by a Council staff member, the Council sent Mrs X a letter in which it referred to her husband, Mr X, as “the late” Mr X.
5. Distressed by this, Mrs X complained to the Council. It responded to her by explaining what had caused the error and said “Once again please accept my apologies for any upset caused”.
6. Unhappy with the response, and because the above apology had been the only apology in the letter, Mrs X complained at the next stage of the Council’s complaints procedure.
7. The Council reviewed matters and acknowledged that the tone of the letter previously sent had not adequately apologised for the error made. It sincerely apologised to Mrs X. It also confirmed that to ensure the error never happens again it would be reviewing its processes and told her that the staff involved had been given additional supervision and guidance.
8. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

9. It is clear Mrs X has been greatly distressed by these events and the unfortunate error made by the Council. However, while its initial response to Mrs X fell below the standard it might have expected, the Council has now provided a full apology and taken action to ensure the same mistake is not made in the future.
10. As the Council has given its apology and taken appropriate action, I do not consider a formal investigation by the Ombudsman is warranted or that we would seek any further remedy even if we were to investigate the complaint.
11. In responding to my draft decision Mrs X says it took too long and over three emails from her before the Council sent its final response in which it offered its apology. She also says that, in her view, the apology was negated because the title of the complaint subject matter reference used by the Council did not match her view of what she had been complaining about. While I note what she says, I do not consider these issues provide sufficient grounds to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman