Summary: Mr X complains a phone call with a Council officer caused him distress. He also complains about the Council’s investigation of his complaint. We will not investigate because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says that a telephone call with a Council officer caused distress. He also complains the Council’s response to his complaint included inaccurate information.
2. Mr X would like to make sure measures are in place to prevent this happening to anyone else. He also wants his original complaint reinvestigated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X received a call on 1 December 2023 from a Council officer to discuss a ‘Stopping Up Order’ close to his property. Mr X was distressed by the call and complained to the Council.
8. Mr X was unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response from the Council sent on 7 December 2023. He complained again to the Council.
9. Mr X was then contacted by a different Council worker on 21 December 2023. This officer explained the reasons for the original call. But also said that as the first call was not recorded there was no evidence to corroborate his complaint.
10. The Council followed this up with a written response sent under stage 2 of its complaints policy, on 15 January 2024.
11. The Council apologised for any stress and inconvenience arising from the original telephone call. It also said it regularly monitors and trains staff to maintain a good level of professionalism. It added that it will remind staff to be courteous and professional on calls.
12. Mr X wants to know the measures in place to prevent calls like this happening again and again says there are inaccuracies in the stage 2 complaint response. He requests the Council’s complaint procedure is investigated and that we reinvestigate his complaint.
13. We will not investigate. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. The Council has followed the complaints procedure in responding to Mr X. And it has reminded staff of the importance of remaining courteous during telephone calls. All of this is in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations of Council’s when investigating complaints.
14. I appreciate Mr X remains dissatisfied. However, without call recordings, we are unlikely to achieve anything further.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint about a telephone call between Mr X and the Council, or the resulting handling of his complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman