Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council distributed an email which she said contravened its duty of neutrality. The Council already apologised and implemented service improvements. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council distributed an email which she said was politically motivated to promote a particular ideology in contravention of the Council’s duty of neutrality.
2. Ms X said the matter caused her frustration and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Background

6. In June 2025 a Council employee distributed an email from an external source to other external users on its mailing list.
7. Ms X complained to the Council. She told the Council the email contravened the Council’s duty of political impartiality.
8. In its complaint response, the Council:
1. acknowledged the email should not have been distributed and explained it was sent in error;
2. apologised for any distress caused;
3. explained changes to its processes to prevent recurrence of the fault including additional training for staff, changing its on-boarding training, ensuring any external emails are checked by a senior manager before forwarding; and
4. asked its monitoring officer to consider whether by sending the email the Council had breached the law. The Monitoring Officer concluded the Council did not breach the law but agreed the email should not have been sent.
9. Ms X disagreed with the conclusion of the Monitoring Officer and brought the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

10. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council already apologised for any distress caused and explained changes to its processes to prevent recurrence of the fault. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.
11. Although Ms X disagreed with the decision of the Monitoring Officer, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
12. The Monitoring Officer considered the information available and concluded the Council did not breach the law. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered the information to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome for most of the complaint, and because there is insufficient evidence of fault for the remainder.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman