The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an email the complainant received from a council officer, after he raised concerns about his neighbour’s refuse. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has already taken satisfactory action in response to the complaint, and there is not enough injustice to the complainant to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing the matter further.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says he received an inappropriate email from a council officer after he attempted to raise concerns about his neighbour’s refuse. Mr X says he only reports matters which are of concern to him and the wider community, and has never targeted one individual.
Mr X says the email was very upsetting, and wants the Council to apologise and pay compensation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman can investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) And we may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take in response to a complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X contacted the Council to escalate a complaint he had made about his neighbour’s overflowing refuse bin. In response, the Council said it had serious concerns about the volume and repetitive nature of the complaints Mr X had lodged against his neighbour, and that it may come to a point where this could be regarded as harassment. It said the Council will always consider complaints made against the services it provides, and the decisions it makes, but the complaints process is not to be abused, or used to target somebody the complainant dislikes.
Mr X contacted his councillor about the email, who then liaised with the Council. It accepted that, on reflection, the wording of the email was harsher than necessary, and said if a similar situation arose in the future the officer would ask his manager to check his correspondence before sending. With reference to paragraph 4 above, I consider this to be a reasonable response to Mr X’s concerns about the email.
And, whilst I appreciate Mr X says he was upset by the email, I am not persuaded the extent of any injustice is so significant as to warrant the Ombudsman using its limited resources to pursue any additional remedy.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has already taken satisfactory action in response to the complaint, and there is not enough injustice to justify our continued involvement in the matter.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman