Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that he was physically removed from a Council building by a security officer. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr B.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains about the actions of a Council security officer when he and his wife were in a queue at a Council building. Mr B says the security officer wrongly accused him of insulting a member of staff before physically removing him and his wife from the building. Mr B says he did not insult anyone and had only commented to his wife about the progress of the queue. Mr B, who is in his late seventies and suffers from arthritis, says he was left badly bruised by the security officer’s assault. Mr B complains the Council has decided not to take any disciplinary action against the security officer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr B. This includes the Council’s responses to Mr B’s complaint and a photograph of the bruising Mr B suffered.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In response to Mr B’s complaint, the Council said:
• It has discussed the matter with the security officer and staff who were present. There was a discrepancy in the detail of events relating to the derogatory comments about staff and comments directed at the security officer.
• The security officer felt Mr B’s comments were likely to be intimidating to staff so he asked Mr B to leave.
• On balance, it considered the actions of the security officer were reasonable in the circumstances, but there could have been other ways of dealing with this situation.
• It has not received any other concerns about this security officer, who will remain working at this Council building.
• It was sorry Mr B’s visit ended in this way and it trusts this will not be the case in future.
6. I find an investigation of Mr B’s complaint is not justified.
7. To form a view on Mr B’s complaint we would need to start an investigation. I recognise Mr B suffered some distress as a result of this incident. But, we have limited resources and must focus our investigations on complaints of serious injustice, particularly issues of public interest.
8. I find the security officer asking Mr B to leave the Council building has not caused Mr B a serious injustice which would justify an investigation by the Ombudsman. Mr B’s allegation of assault is a criminal matter, which only the Police can investigate.
9. In addition, the Council’s comments indicate it has received conflicting accounts of what happened. So, it is possible an investigation may not help us make sound findings on what happened.
10. Also, it is unlikely an investigation would achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr B. This is because Mr B does not want this security officer to be allowed to work at the Council building. But, this is for the Council to decide. We cannot ask a Council to take disciplinary proceedings against staff.

Back to top

Final decision

11. For the above reasons, we will not investigate Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman