Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an accusation of illegal waste tipping. There is not a significant enough injustice to Mr X to justify us investigating the incident with the officer. Mr X can reasonably take court action if he wants a decision about the alleged defamation. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains:
• A Council officer came to his property, accused him of illegal waste tipping, gave a verbal warning and threatened further action; and
• The Council did not deal properly with his formal complaint about the incident.
2. He says the incident was upsetting and he is frustrated with the handling of his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. I understand Mr X found the incident with the Council officer upsetting and angering. However, as I understand this was a single incident without further action by the Council, I do not consider this amounts to significant enough injustice to Mr X to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating whether the Council was at fault.
8. Mr X says the Council’s action was libellous. The courts can consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 4 applies to this point. Whether defamation has occurred is not straightforward legally. It is more properly a matter for the courts. The possible cost of court action does not automatically mean the Ombudsman should try to decide such points of law. Mr X could ask for his costs if court action succeeds. Overall, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to go to court if he wants a definitive ruling on defamation.
9. Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his formal complaint. I understand he is dissatisfied about this. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
10. One of the results Mr X wants from his complaint is for the Council to dismiss the officer involved in the incident. We would not achieve that, even if we investigated and upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is not a significant enough injustice to Mr X to justify us investigating the incident with the officer. Mr X can reasonably take court action if he wants a decision about the alleged defamation. It would be a disproportionate use of resources to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman