Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an email the Council sent him in error which referred to him in a derogatory way. This is because the Council has already taken suitable action in response to the matter via its own investigation and there is nothing further we would add or recommend were we to also investigate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about an email a Council officer sent him in error which referred to him in a derogatory way. Mr X says this impacted his mental health and he suffered a loss of work and earnings as a result as he felt unable to leave his house.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 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)
3. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We look at organisational fault, not individual professional competence. Decisions about individual’s fitness to practise or work are for the organisations concerned, and for professional regulators, not the Ombudsman. (Local Government Act 1974, s26(1) and s26A(1) as amended)

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 complained to the Council after he received an email from a Council officer in error which referred to Mr X in a derogatory way.
8. The Council apologised to Mr X and confirmed the officer responsible had been reprimanded and appropriate action taken, although details of this could not be shared with Mr X. It agreed the officer’s comment was unacceptable and was caused by a single lapse of judgement by the officer and was not common practice.
9. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response. He said the officer should be removed from his post. He also sought compensation for stress and loss of earnings.
10. The Council advised Mr X to seek legal advice should he wish to submit a claim for damages against it for loss of earnings.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because an investigation by this office would not add to the responses the Council has already provided via its full complaints procedure. It has taken suitable action by apologising to Mr X and taking disciplinary measures as a result of the issue raised. There is nothing further we would add or recommend were we to also investigate. Mr X can submit a claim for damages if he considers he has suffered a loss of earnings as a result of the Council’s actions. If this is refused Mr X can pursue his claim in the courts. We cannot decide such a claim. We also could not achieve the outcome Mr X seeks in having the officer removed from their post as it lies outside our remit. We cannot consider or recommend disciplinary action.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because a further investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response the Council has already provided via its own investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman