The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’ss complaint about the Council’s officers using derogatory language. This is because there is not enough evidence of the Council causing personal injustice, it would be reasonable for Mr X to pursue a damages claim in court, and we cannot achieve the outcomes he seeks in relation to the Council’s staff. This means the matter does not warrant us investigating.
The complaint
Mr X complains that, during an inspection of one of his company’s properties, Council officers used derogatory and insulting language to describe the company and its staff in front of the property’s tenants.
Mr X says this has severely impacted staff’s mental health.
Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of the matter.
Mr X wants the offending Council officers dismissed and full transparency on the Council’s handling of the matter
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We 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 continue an investigation if we decide: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by Mr X.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X works for a company which provides supported accommodation.
Council officers inspected one of the company’s properties, accompanied with an officer from a local charity.
Mr X says during this inspection, staff and tenants heard council officers and the charity officer discussing former company staff and the conditions of another of the company’s properties using insulting and derogatory language.
The Council did not take any formal enforcement action against Mr X’s company after the inspection. As a result, there are no Council decisions we could investigate.
Mr X complained to the Council about the language the officers used and submitted witness statements as supporting documentation. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint but did not say whether it found the officers did or did not use the alleged language.
If Mr X believes the company was defamed and wishes to pursue compensation for the effects of the visit as he says in his complaint, it would be reasonable for him to make a court claim. Only the courts can decide liability for harm or injury of the extent described by Mr X, so this would allow a court to weigh the witness evidence and come to a view.
When investigating complaints, we can consider the Council’s actions, but not those of individuals. Nor can we investigate the way a council manages its personnel.
As we are not investigating the subject of Mr X’s complaint to the Council we will not separately investigate the Council’s handling of it or of related correspondence.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of the Council causing personal injustice to him, it would be reasonable for him to pursue a damages claim in court, and we cannot achieve the outcomes he seeks in relation to the Council’s staff. This means the matter does not warrant us investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman