Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not arrange for him to meet a highways inspector and that an officer called him ‘an idiot’ in an internal Council communication. There is no ongoing injustice or evidence Mr X has a problem. The Council has written to Mr X appropriately regarding the officer’s comment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not arranged for him to meet a highways inspector to discuss his concerns about defects on a new estate.
2. Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with his complaints and ignored what he has told it. Mr X says he complained that an officer described him as ‘an idiot’ an internal communication which he saw as a result of a data request. Mr X say the Council has caused him time and trouble and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered Mr X’s information, comments and reply to my draft decision statement. The information includes the Council’s replies to his complaints. I have considered internet photographs of the area.

Back to top

What I found

5. There are several issues mentioned in the correspondence namely defects in a road, littering at a Superstore, and the Council’s reply to Mr X’s request on its handling of his personal data:
1. The Council invited Mr X to provide details of the highway defects and said it would pass them onto a highways engineer. Mr X lives on a new estate and the Council says the highway is an unadopted road.
2. The Council visited a shopping area due to Mr X reporting littering. It says it did not find littering. It says the developer is responsible for litter on the estate.
3. The Council says it has responded under the data protection law and supplied Mr X with its communications about him. Mr X says his request for data revealed the officer comment about him and that in his view there was ‘collusion’ to stop him meeting a highway inspector.
6. In August and September 2019, the Council wrote to Mr X replying to his concerns and treating the officer rudeness as a formal complaint. The Council says it does not condone such behaviour. It has expressed regret for any upset or offence caused. It has spoken to the officer who apologises, via the complaint officer, and says no malice was intended. The Council has apologised for the recipient of the email for not reporting the offensive email to a senior manager.
7. Following his complaint, Mr X wrote to the Council and said it had failed to log all his complaints or answer all his questions and points.

Analysis

8. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
1. The Ombudsman investigates fault causing injustice. Mr X has not suffered an injustice. I invited Mr X to clarify and provide evidence (such as a photograph) of an injustice or a problem arising from the issues mentioned such as the highway or littering and he has not done so.
2. The reference to Mr X being ‘an idiot’ was in an internal communication not something sent to him. The Council has responded to Mr X appropriately regarding the officer’s behaviour. There is no ongoing injustice to Mr X. It would not be a good use of limited public resources to pursue the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not arrange for him to meet a highways inspector and that an officer called him ‘an idiot’ in an internal Council communication. There is no ongoing injustice or evidence that Mr X has a problem. The Council has written to Mr X appropriately regarding the officer’s comment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman