Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from Dr X about the Council’s handling of concerns following a resident steering group meeting she attended, where she says she was treated unfairly and unable to participate properly. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Dr X complains about how a resident steering group meeting she attended was conducted. She says she was interrupted, unable to fully express her views, and that non-resident participants were given greater influence. Dr X also complains the Council has not implemented actions it agreed to following her complaint, including providing an apology, confirming training, and arranging further meetings. She also objects to comments made about her conduct during the complaints process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council considered Dr X’s concerns about the meeting and spoke to those who attended. It partly upheld the complaint, apologising for an inappropriate comment made during the meeting and identifying further actions, including developing a code of conduct, providing training, and improving engagement arrangements. I will not investigate this complaint because we could not add to the investigation or achieve a worthwhile outcome.
6. There are differing accounts of what happened during the meeting, and we were not present. In the absence of independent evidence, we are unlikely to reach a robust finding about the conduct of those involved.
7. While Dr X disagrees with the Council’s conclusions, it considered her concerns and reached a view based on the information available. It is unlikely we could reach a different or more certain finding on the key issue of how the meeting was conducted.
8. Dr X also seeks implementation of actions the Council identified in its response, including arranging an apology, confirming training, and facilitating further engagement. These are matters of ongoing service delivery, and an investigation would be unlikely to achieve more than the Council has already agreed.
9. As we cannot reach a robust finding on the core issue or achieve the outcomes Dr X seeks, it would not be a good use of public resources to investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Dr X’s complaint because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman