Summary: Mr B complains about the behaviour of a Council officer and about how the Council handled his complaint. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, complains about the behaviour of a Council officer and about the way it handled his complaint and his access to information requests. He says the officer made mistakes and made accusations against him which he felt questioned his honesty and integrity. Mr B says he has possibly been libelled and wants an apology.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered the further information he provided.

Back to top

What I found

5. In 2018 Mr B contacted the Council and complained about the contents of a Public Path Diversion Order proposed by the Council. He also complained about the actions of an officer, who I shall refer to as Officer X, who was involved in the process.
6. The Council’s Chief Executive responded to Mr B’s complaint. He explained that the making of the Order was the subject of a Public Enquiry and that the Planning Inspectorate would be determining the matter and considering any representations Mr B raised at the enquiry.
7. With regard to the complaint about the actions of the officer, the Chief Executive told Mr B that he was satisfied the officer had acted professionally at all times in communicating with Mr B and in following the prescribed legislative procedures for the Order.
8. Mr B found the Council’s response to his complaint, and its response to a Freedom of Information request he made, to be inadequate and complained to the Ombudsman about these matters a year later.

Assessment

9. While I understand Mr B has been disappointed by the Council’s handling of this matter, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation of the complaint by the Ombudsman and we will not generally investigate where the outcome sought is an apology.
10. The Planning Inspectorate made the ultimate decision on the Order and not the Council. If Mr B feels he has been libelled he can seek legal advice but such a matter is for the courts and not the Ombudsman.
11. The restriction highlighted at para 3 applies to the part of Mr B’s complaint about his FoI request. As he has this alternative remedy available to him which we would reasonably expect him to use, it will not be pursued by the Ombudsman.
12. In responding to my draft decision Mr B details his complaints against Officer X, including that he passed on information in a way that might have been a possible breach of the data protection legislation. This too would be a matter for the Information Commissioner and Mr B has acknowledged that details about his right to appeal to the Information Commissioner were given to him by the Council previously.
13. Mr B also says his requests for a meeting with Council officers were refused and that this is contrary to his democratic rights. However, Mr B has no right to a meeting. It is up to officers to decide whether to meet him and that it decided not to is not in itself evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman