Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate his complaint that a council officer lied to him and the Council subsequently extended its managed contact arrangements with him. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a significantly different outcome for Mr B.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained that a council officer lied to him and the Council subsequently extended its managed contact arrangements with him. He says that meant he could not attend a planned joint site visit with a council officer and charge his client for his time at that visit.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information Mr B provided, the Council’s managed contact policy and Mr B’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B told us with effect from July 2019 the Council applied its managed contact policy to him.
5. Mr B attended a site visit in August 2019. He says three council officers and two representatives of his client also attended and there were workers on site. Mr B told us, at the end of the visit, he asked all three officers they had any concerns about how the site visit had been conducted. He says all three replied in the negative. In his view the actions of two of the Council’s officers called into question their professionalism.
6. On the following day a council officer emailed Mr B. The officer said, following the site visit with him on the previous day, she had received reports alleging further inappropriate behaviours. The officer said, for this reason and pending the outcome of his appeal about managed contact arrangements, she had agreed with a senior officer in the relevant service that, in future, female officers would not attend any site visits with him. This had immediate effect.
7. Mr B asked for more detail of the officers’ concerns. The Council’s officer summarised them in her reply.
8. Mr B says the Council has refused to confirm the identity of the officer who made the allegation. He says that officer lied to him on site which is in breach of standard 6 of the Nolan standards of conduct in public life (holders of public office should be truthful). He says the Council has colluded in breach of that standard. To put things right Mr B originally told us he wanted the Council to identify the officer concerned. He then wanted the Council to bring disciplinary proceedings against the officer for failing to conform to the standards of public life. He says the remedy he is now seeking is for the Ombudsman to give advice to the local planning authority about the need for honesty and openness in conversations on site.
9. The Council has a duty to protect the welfare of its staff. It has the right to take steps it judges are proportionate to comply with its duty. There is no obligation on the Council to tell Mr B who made the allegations against him. The Council told Mr B it had considered what happened at the site visit and the officers’ conduct at the time. The Council’s view was the professionalism and conduct of the officers involved, was, and is, not in question.
10. We focus our resources on cases where, if we find fault by a council, there is a realistic prospect we could achieve the remedy the complainant wants. Our intervention in this case would not achieve the outcome Mr B originally wanted. We do not make recommendations that councils should take disciplinary action against its officers. That is because it is for the Council, as employer, to decide whether to take such action.
11. The Council’s constitution includes a Code of Conduct for officers. Officers who belong to professional organisations are also expected to act in accordance with the professional and ethical standards of that organisation. So there is already a framework within which the council’s officers carry out their work. There is little the Ombudsman could add to the advice already available to councils and its officers. Our role is to consider complaints of injustice caused by administrative fault by a council. If we find there has been fault by a council, we can call on it to provide a remedy for the complainant’s injustice. The injustice Mr B told us he has suffered is that he was unable to charge his client for a site visit. The remedy now sought by Mr B does not directly address the injustice he says he has suffered. In February 2020 the Council told Mr B it had removed the contact restrictions it had imposed. It says its officers can, however, refuse to attend site meetings. Mr B accepts he is not compelled to meet them on site. For these reasons it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a significantly different outcome for Mr B.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a significantly different outcome for Mr B.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman