Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his communication with councillor B and the Council not dealing with his complaint. There is no Council fault and no injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not reply when he and Mrs X wrote to complain about a communication from councillor B who, in an email of May 2021, refused to meet him or supply requested information. Mr X wanted documents and CCTV footage of an incident in 2014 involving his son, Mr Y, when a pupil at a special needs school. Mr X says councillor B and other members of the Council have covered up an assault. He says he has not had a reply from the monitoring officer who deals with complaints against members.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information and comments provided by the complainant and Council. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X by telephone. The Council has provided a copy of the correspondence and court order referred to below.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint for the reasons below:
5. We investigate fault causing injustice. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault and no injustice to Mr X.
6. There was no fault in the Council deciding not to communicate directly with Mr X or in the way in which Councillor B wrote to Mr X on 19 May 2021. Councillor B’s email to Mr X correctly says his concerns and request for CCTV footage of the alleged assault was within the scope of Mr Y’s personal injury claim at the County Court. Mrs X was Mr Y’s ‘litigation friend’ in the proceedings. Councillor B informed Mr X that future correspondence would be sent to the Council’s solicitor to deal with.
7. Councillor B told Mr X the Council would not reopen complaints dealt with in 2018 and followed good practice by giving details of this office should Mr X wish to pursue a complaint. There was no need for Mr X to write again to the Council or for it to reply to him during the period of the court case.
8. Mr and Mrs X’s email to the Council on 7 June expressed shock and distress at Councillor B’s communication. The issue of communications was discussed at Court. On 19 July 2021 the County Court made an order reminding Mrs X that all correspondence with the Council in relation to the court claim must be sent to the Council’s solicitors. The order says the Council may disregard any correspondence sent to it in defiance of the order.
9. Mr X has complained to the Council about what happened to Mr Y. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this underlying issue as explained in our related complaint decision (reference 21 016 289).

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his communication with councillor B and the Council not dealing with his complaint. There is no Council fault and no injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman