The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to respond appropriately after the complainant reported wildlife was at risk due to a lack of water. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s poor response after he reported wildlife was at risk due to a lack of water. He says the Council lied and fabricated evidence. He also complains the Council blocked him from making comments on Facebook. Mr X wants an apology, for staff to be disciplined and for the Council to lift his Facebook restriction.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and comments people made on Facebook. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
Mr X reported to the Council that a pond was dry and wildlife was at risk. He suggested the pond could be filled by running a hose from a toilet block or by putting out bowls of water. An officer visited and found there was water within a few metres of the pond. The Council posted images of the water on Facebook.
Mr X complained and alleged the Council had lied and fabricated the image of the water. Mr X also made personal attacks about people who were posting on Facebook. The Council removed the posts and restricted Mr X from making further comments.
In response to his complaint the Council explained that ponds naturally dry out in dry conditions and birds migrate to other locations. The Council denied there were dead birds and denied it had posted a fake photograph on Facebook. The Council explained it would not be safe to use water from the toilets as the water would have a different chemical composition to rainwater and could pose a risk. The Council said it had visited the pond again and confirmed there was water. It explained it would do some work which it hopes will help to protect the water supply next year. The Council confirmed its decision to restrict Mr X from Facebook because he was making personal attacks on the character and integrity of other people.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council responded appropriately to Mr X’s report by checking the water levels and establishing water was nearby. And, in response to his complaint, it explained it is not responsible for the well-being of wild birds but was, nevertheless, satisfied there was water. The Council was not required to put any images on Facebook so it is difficult to see why it would post a fake image as Mr X has alleged. Mr X has made many allegations, including misconduct in public office, but there is insufficient evidence of fault to require an investigation.
Mr X complains the Council blocked him from posting on Facebook. The Council explained why it did this and it is entitled to decide who can use its social media. I have read some of the posts and seen personal comments from various people, including Mr X. Some of his comments show he was accusing people of being council officers and he accused some council staff of lying and of misconduct in public office.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman