Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an inaccurate statement made by the Council about the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council falsified a statement about him and has not properly investigated what happened. Mr X wants the Council to confirm the statement is false and investigate the motive behind the lies.

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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr X complained to the Council after officer A told Mr X that officer B had said that Mr X had witnessed, on CCTV, someone (Mr Y) locking a gate. The gate was on a path leading to the beech on part of the Thames. Mr X denied making such a statement and denied ever seeing anyone on CCTV. Mr X said officers had falsified a statement about him.
5. In response to his complaint the Council explained that officer A had been investigating reports that an unknown person was locking the gate. The gate, which has since been removed, had to be kept unlocked to stop people being trapped on the beech. Officer A spoke to Mr X because comments from officer B suggested Mr X might be able to help the Council find the person who had been locking the gate. The Council accepted there had been miscommunication between the two officers and reminded both officers to check the accuracy of any information they refer to. The Council apologised to Mr X for the distress the comments had caused and said there had been no intention to falsify documents or direct any malice towards Mr X.
6. Mr X suggests officer B was trying to cause trouble for Mr Y and perhaps had an issue with Mr Y’s success or heritage. Mr X says he (Mr X) has been made the victim of lies and was made to feel uncomfortable in his workplace.

Assessment

7. I am not entirely sure what happened but the Council wrongly thought that Mr X had seen something on CCTV regarding the gate. It appears there was some misunderstanding either in terms of what officer B thought Mr X had said or that officer A misunderstood comments from officer B. Whatever happened, I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice to Mr X. Nobody has suggested there has been any wrong-doing by Mr X and nobody has accused him of locking the gate. The inaccurate statement has not caused an impact to Mr X that requires an investigation, especially as the Council has apologised for the offence and upset the comment caused. I appreciate Mr X is dissatisfied with the response and says he was made to feel uncomfortable; however, there is not enough injustice to require any further involvement by us.
8. Mr X says an injustice has been caused to Mr Y and has suggested the officer was trying to damage Mr Y’s reputation. But, Mr X is not acting on behalf of Mr Y and there is nothing to suggest Mr Y wishes to complain. Mr Y could complain to the Council if he feels he has been caused an injustice due to fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman