Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council officer asking Mr X a question which he found offensive and upsetting. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are unlikely to be able to retrieve new evidence to add anything worthwhile to the investigation already carried out by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the conduct of a Council officer who visited him at home to retrieve a document the Council needed for Mr X’s relative’s case.
2. Mr X says he was offended and upset by a question asked by a Council officer, and he has not received an apology from the officer in question.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 read the Council’s complaints responses.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I have read the three complaint responses by the Council to Mr X.
8. The Council found that Mr X was in receipt of an unusual arrangement where he was receiving support from a student social worker on placement (outside of the usual needs assessed under the Care Act). This support assisted Mr X in the past with his correspondence and filing needs but came to an end when the student placement ended.
9. The incident that triggered the complaint arose after officers visited Mr X’s home to retrieve paperwork needed for his relative’s case. The officers said the document would be returned by post. Apparently Mr X wanted the document returned in person to ensure it is returned to its correct place as Mr X’s health condition means he cannot put it back. Mr X reported that an officer then asked him why an organization/charity for his health condition could not provide him with this type of assistance which he found offensive and upsetting.
10. The Council has overall apologized for any offence taken by Mr X. It said, while it found the question asked was legitimate, officers will be reminded to be careful of their tone when asking such questions. It also said its findings were made after interviewing both officers who visited. And it invited Mr X to request a Care Act compliant needs assessment if he thinks he needs it, but no further action will be taken on his complaint.
11. We will not investigate. This is because we are unlikely to achieve anything more by investigating. This has because the Council’s responses interviewed both officers who visited and found the question asked was reasonable in the circumstances. We are unlikely to be able to add to this any further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X complaint because we are unlikely to be able to add to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman