Summary: Mr C complains that a Council employee was abusive and threatening towards him. He also says the Council delayed in responding to his complaint. The Ombudsman finds the Council properly investigated Mr C’s complaint and responded in a timely fashion, but the response was not sent because of a technical error. The Ombudsman considers the Council’s apology and its offer to make a payment to Mr C represents a satisfactory remedy for the injustice he suffered.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains that a Council employee was verbally abusive and used threatening behaviour towards him. He also complains that the Council delayed in responding to his complaint.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have discussed the complaint with Mr C, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
5. I have written to Mr C and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr C says that on 18 January 2019 a Council lorry was parked half on the pavement and half in the road opposite several parked cars. As he was driving past the lorry, a Council employee, Mr X, stepped out in front of his car. Mr C says he used his horn and Mr X began swearing at him and banging on the roof and windows of his car. Mr C says he stopped to check whether there was any damage and Mr X began threatening him, using abusive language and shouting. Mr C says Mr X had his fists up and his colleague had to hold him back.
7. Mr C is elderly and says he found the incident traumatic. He was so badly shaken that he immediately went to the Council’s offices and complained. He says he was assured that someone would contact him within 24 hours but no one did so. Mr C sent a letter to the Council setting out what had happened but received no response. He then wrote to the Council’s Chief Executive and received a response from a member of staff promising that the matter would be considered. Mr C says he received no response despite several emails.

The Council’s response to Mr C’s complaint

8. On 7 April 2019 a customer feedback coordinator responded to Mr C’s complaint having first discussed it with him on the telephone. She explained that the Highways Department had responded to his initial complaint on 29 January 2019 following the completion of its investigation into the incident. But, because of a technical issue, the email containing the response was not sent. She apologised for this and sent Mr C a copy of the Highways Department’s response. In its letter the Department apologised for Mr X’s behaviour and explained that an internal investigation had been carried out and the circumstances reviewed with Mr X who had been reminded of the Council’s expectations with regard to customer service.

The Council’s investigation

9. The Council says Mr X informed his supervisor of the incident and completed a form setting out the details. The Highways Manager instructed the supervisor to take witness statements from the other employees on site. The supervisor interviewed the witnesses separately and prepared statements. The Highways Manager then considered all the evidence together with the Council’s internal staffing procedures before deciding what action to take.
10. The Council accepts the incident was upsetting for Mr C and has apologised again. It has also agreed to pay him £50 in recognition of the distress he suffered and his time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
11. I consider the Council properly investigated the incident, including interviewing witnesses. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to reach a view on the action taken by the Council under its internal staffing procedures as this is a personnel matter. Likewise, the Ombudsman cannot provide details of the action taken for data protection reasons.
12. I am satisfied the Council’s written apology and its offer to pay Mr C £50 represents a satisfactory remedy for the distress Mr C suffered and his time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.

Mr C’s complaint

13. I am satisfied the Council responded to Mr C’s complaint within a reasonable timescale. He reported the incident on 18 January 2019 and, following its investigation, the Highways Department sent him a written response on 29 January 2019. It is unfortunate that Mr C did not receive this response because of a technical problem but the Council apologised for this and sent him a copy of the Highways Department’s letter on 7 April 2019.
14. I consider the Council’s apology is a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused by the fact that Mr C did not receive the Highways Department’s letter until April 2019.

Back to top

Agreed action

15. The Council has offered to pay Mr C £50 in recognition of the distress he suffered and his time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
16. The Council should make this payment within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation on the basis I am satisfied with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman