The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of a report produced by the Council, or about a warning the Council issued about the complainants contact about this matter. This is because the matters have not caused the complainant a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about the contents of a report the Council produced regarding a planning matter. Mr X says the report contained spelling mistakes and typographical errors. Mr X also complains that the that the Council warned him that it may invoke its unreasonable and vexatious complaints policy in regard to his continued contact about this matter
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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council about the contents of a report it complied regarding a planning matter. Mr X said the report contained over 100 errors including spelling mistakes and typographical errors. The Council sent Mr X a final response to his complaint and told him he could complain to the Ombudsman if dissatisfied. Mr X continued to correspond with the Council and so it sent him a warning, under its unreasonable and vexatious complaints policy.
We do not investigate every complaint we receive. We are a publicly funded body and have a duty to use the funds allocated to us in an effective, efficient and economic manner. While I understand Mr X is not happy with the quality of the report and about the warning he received, these are not matters we will investigate as they have not caused him an injustice significant enough to justify an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate X’s complaint because he has not suffered a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman