Summary: We will not investigate this complaint a Council Officer sent a libellous email about Mr X. That is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. It is reasonable for Mr X to pursue a remedy through the courts if he believes the Council’s actions were defamatory.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that in an email to his previous employer, the Council made defamatory statements about him. He said the Council’s actions were damaging to his reputation and upsetting. He wants the Council to investigate his complaint, interview the employee and make a statement about the email.

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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X has initiated employment proceedings against his previous employer for unfair dismissal. As part of those proceedings, Mr X received a copy of an email the Council sent his previous employer about a visit it completed to his then workplace. In that email, a Council Officer refers to not having the “greatest of interactions” with Mr X.
7. Mr X disagreed with the information provided in that email about his interactions with the Council Officer. He subsequently complained to the Council about the email content. In his complaint, he said the email was not being used as part of proceedings.
8. We will not investigate this complaint further. Firstly, I do not consider the contents of the email has caused Mr X an injustice significant enough to justify our involvement. Secondly, as we were not present at the Council’s visit to Mr X’s former employment, we could not reach a finding on what took place. Therefore, there is nothing worthwhile to be achieved by further investigation. It is reasonable for Mr X to take court action if he believes the Council’s email is defamation of character.
9. If, Mr X believes the email sent by the Council has impacted on the termination of his employment, then Mr X can raise this as part of the Employment Tribunal. In the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint, it said he could request a Tribunal Witness Order if he wanted the Council Officer responsible for the email to provide evidence to the Tribunal. It is reasonable for Mr X to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman