Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint concerning wrongdoing by a charity in connection with the suicide of a charity employee. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to properly investigate wrongdoing by a charity it funds in connection with the suicide of a charity employee who was a close friend of his. He says the Council failed to set out any reasonable grounds for clearing the charity’s conduct, failed to keep file notes of its investigation and failed to respond properly to his complaint about its conduct. He says the Council’s failings have caused him distress and upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, 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

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. A friend of Mr X, who I refer to as Q, worked for a charity which indirectly received part-funding from the Council. Unfortunately, Q committed suicide and believing Q had done so in part because of the conduct of the charity as Q’s employer, Mr X complained to the Council.
6. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint about the charity’s handling of a disciplinary matter involving Q and to his enquiry regarding what steps the Council, as part-funder of the charity, would take in connection with the matter.
7. The Council explained it did not directly fund the charity and instead funded an umbrella organisation which included the charity. It told Mr X it had contacted the umbrella organisation which had confirmed it was satisfied the charity was operating in accordance with the Council’s Baseline Standards which formed part of the funding agreement. Due to the seriousness of Mr X’s complaint, the Council also contacted the charity directly to ensure the terms of its grant agreement with the umbrella organisation were not being breached.
8. Having investigated matters, the Council concluded there was no evidence the charity had breached Council standards and it found no grounds to take the matter further. It confirmed it would not be asking the umbrella organisation to take any action against the charity.
9. Mr X continued to pursue his complaint and made a Freedom of Information request. However, the Council confirmed its position and said it would be taking no further action nor would it be taking any action in relation to Mr X’s further complaint about the breach of the code of practice on the management of records.
10. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to us.

Assessment

11. The loss of his close friend must undoubtedly have been a very distressing experience which led Mr X to pursue his concerns about what possible impact Q’s employment situation might have had on Q. I understand Mr X also complained to the Charity Commission but I do not know the exact nature of this complaint or its outcome.
12. Mr X complained to the Council because it indirectly part-funds the charity. It investigated his concerns and in doing so liaised with the umbrella organisation and directly with the charity. It reviewed the charity’s disciplinary and grievance procedure and the investigation report into the incident and discussed these with the charity’s Chair of Trustees. Having done so it reached a conclusion that no further action would be taken. It is not open to us to review the merits of this decision.
13. The outcome of his complaint to the Council was not as Mr X wanted but I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would be likely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
14. If Mr X has FOI issues he wishes to pursue then the body best placed to deal with such matters is the Information Commissioner and not the Ombudsman.
15. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says he did not complain about the outcome of the Council’s investigation but that it had failed to properly investigate and failed to set out any reasonable grounds for clearing the charity’s conduct. He says he does not know why my view is that an investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to add to that carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome. However, I have noted above the extent of the Council’s own investigation and I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest there was fault in the way the Council dealt with matters.
16. I do not know what information the Council released to Mr X because, as a third party, confidentiality and data protection are relevant issues, but any challenge Mr X may want to make on this, or the issue of missing file notes, can be made to the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman