Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to take court action against him. This is because the Local Government Act 1974 does not allow us to investigate complaints about the start of court action or what happened at court. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint of defamation as it would be reasonable for him to make a claim for damages through the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly decided to prosecute him for failing to comply with an enforcement statement, made misleading and defamatory comments to the press about the case and delayed in responding to his complaint.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X’s representative, Mr Y, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. As set out at Paragraph 4 above the law prohibits us from investigating any complaint about the start of court action or what happened at court. We cannot therefore investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council was wrong to prosecute him for failing to comply with the enforcement notice. We also cannot investigate any complaint about the manner in which the Council decided not to proceed with the prosecution.
7. While it does not appear Mr X has taken court action against the Council regarding the alleged defamatory comments it made to the press we consider it would be reasonable for him to do so. We cannot determine whether the Council’s statements were defamatory and the injustice Mr X claims from the issue- primarily reputational damage- is not something we can quantify. The courts are therefore better placed to deal with this issue and determine if Mr X is entitled to compensation.
8. While Mr X is also unhappy about the way the Council dealt with his complaint, the courts have said that where we cannot investigate a complaint about the main or underlying issue, we cannot normally investigate related issues either. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration in England [2006] EWHC 2847 (Admin)). So, where the substance of a complaint is not subject to investigation, the Ombudsman does not investigate the Council’s handling of the issue in isolation.
9. In any event, any injustice caused by the Council’s delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint did not cause significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the substantive issue concerns the Council’s decision to prosecute Mr X and this is barred from investigation under Schedule 5.1 of the Local Government Act 1974. If Mr X wishes to claim compensation for damages caused by the Council’s statements to the press it would be reasonable for him to make a claim through the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman