The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a telephone call. It is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view on whether the Council was at fault. Any fault did not cause a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation. We would be unlikely to recommend more than the Council has already done. As we are not investigating the telephone call, it would be disproportionate to investigate how the Council handled Mr X’s complaint.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of a telephone call about his council tax. He says the officer handling the call: made unnecessary difficulties about speaking to Mr X’s friend without knowing the friend’s name; ended the call rather than transferring it to a manager if the officer was finding the call difficult (the Council denies this, saying the call cut out); and was wrong not to call Mr X back if the call had ended unexpectedly as the Council claims. Mr X says this caused him stress and he believes the Council might have discriminated against him due to his mental health.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence and a note the Council provided.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
There was no recording of the call. It is therefore unlikely any investigation by us could reach a clear enough view about the main disputed points, including: whether the officer wrongly made difficulties about not knowing Mr X’s friend’s name; whether the Council ended the call; and whether the officer had reasonable grounds for stating she did not call Mr X back because she saw no need as she believed she had resolved the council tax matter Mr X was calling about. Therefore any investigation is unlikely to find enough evidence of fault by the Council.
I appreciate Mr X found the situation stressful, especially with his mental health difficulties. However, I do not consider any stress and upset arising from one telephone call in these circumstances is significant enough to warrant us investigating whether the Council was at fault. This is especially so because, as explained above, it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view on whether there was fault.
The Council apologised to Mr X for any misunderstanding. It has now introduced call recording and is giving staff training in call-handling. We would be unlikely to recommend more than that. Mr X wants a payment, but in the circumstances it is unlikely we would recommend that, even if we could reach a clear enough view there was fault by the Council.
Mr X is also dissatisfied with how the Council handled his formal complaint about the matter. 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.
Mr X told us he wants the Council to help him fill in any forms if he might be eligible for Council Tax Support. Mr X can ask the Council for that help anyway, if he is seeking to apply.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view, the injustice does not warrant investigation, and it is unlikely we would recommend more than the Council has done. As we are not investigating the handling of the telephone call, it would be disproportionate to investigate how the Council investigated Mr X’s complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman