Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council lost his letters. This is because the Council has since apologised and there is insufficient outstanding injustice to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council lost three hand-delivered letters. He says the Council has since refused to provide an unreserved apology for this incompetence and handled his complaint poorly.

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 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 outstanding injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Our Assessment Code sets out how we only look at what we decide are the most significant and serious complaints. We normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider. We will be less likely to investigate if the service provider’s response to the complaint already represents a reasonable and proportionate outcome.
6. In its final complaint response to Mr X, the Council acknowledged that it’s stage 1 response should have included an apology for the problems experienced with his letters and for the inconvenience caused. It apologised it did not do so but said the Council Leader had provided an apology to Mr X separately. It concluded that together, these apologies were sufficient to address his complaint.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has now apologised to Mr X which is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused and a proportionate outcome to his complaint. Although I acknowledge Mr X remains unhappy with the apologies provided as he says these are not unreserved, this is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.
8. Mr X also complains about how his complaint was handled. 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 and so we will not investigate this.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient outstanding injustice to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman