The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not respond to the complainant’s questions about the pandemic and vaccines. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice and we can exercise discretion in whether to investigate a complaint.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says an officer did not respond to his questions about the pandemic. He says he has been the victim of direct discrimination and has referred to the Equality Act.
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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
Mr X wrote to a Council officer to ask why the Council was “peddling emergency-authorised experimental therapies to the town’s feeble-minded”. It appears Mr X was referring to Covid vaccines. Mr X said there was no pandemic because the mortality figures for the area had not increased. He provided figures he had obtained from a Freedom of Information request. Mr X wanted the Council to explain how there could be a pandemic when this was not shown by the mortality statistics.
Mr X says the Council did not respond, other than to send an information sheet about vaccines.
Mr X complained about the lack of a response from the officer he contacted. The Council said it would not deal with his complaint because his points cannot be investigated. It said the pandemic was declared by the World Health Organisation (WHO), not by the Council. It explained the vaccines were authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Agency. Mr X describes the response as “passing the buck” and says he has been discriminated against. He says he is complaining about the lack of response.
Mr X may not have received a response from the officer he contacted and may feel an information sheet about vaccines did not address his concerns. But he received a response following his complaint and it is hard to see that a response at an earlier stage would have been any different. Mr X disagrees with the information he was given about the WHO declaring a pandemic but that disagreement does not mean the Council is at fault. The declaration of a pandemic was global and did not just relate to Mr X’s area. In addition, whatever response Mr X received, it would not have altered either the local or national response to the pandemic or the use of vaccines. For these reasons there is insufficient evidence of injustice to require an investigation.
Mr X says he is the victim of direct discrimination by the Council. Direct discrimination occurs when someone is treated less favourably due to a protected characteristic. Protected characteristics include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage/civil partnership, pregnancy/maternity, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation. Mr X says he is the victim of direct discrimination but my view is that the Equality Act is not engaged, not least because I have not seen reference to a protected characteristic. If Mr X thinks he has received less favourable treatment linked to a protected characteristic he would need to raise that as a specific complaint with the Council. We can only consider complaints about issues that have completed the Council’s complaints process.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice and because we have the discretion to decide whether to start an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman