The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant allegedly being misled as to the reason a Council committee meeting was not livestreamed. This is because there is insufficient evidence of Mr X having suffered a significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant (Mr X) complains about being misled by a councillor of the Council as to why a committee meeting was not livestreamed as intended. Mr X says he was told the reason was due to technical difficulties. However, he says he later learned that the reason was due to a committee member dying and that because his death had not yet been announced, it would be insensitive to mention this during a livestreamed committee meeting. Mr X also complains the handling of his complaint to the Council’s monitoring officer has been inadequate.
In summary, Mr X says he has been misled and that the Council’s handling of the matter has caused him unnecessary time and trouble. As a desired outcome, he wants the Council to take his complaint seriously and ensure better complaint handling in the future.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Ombudsman is only required to accept a complaint where the complainant has been caused a significant and personal injustice because of fault by the Council. This means Mr X would need to show he has suffered serious loss, harm or distress due to a Council failing. Regardless of whether the committee meeting was not livestreamed due to technical issues, or circumstances relating to the health of a member, there is insufficient evidence of Mr X having suffered a significant injustice to warrant our involvement. As regards to the Council’s handling of his complaint, we do not consider it a good use of public money to investigate complaints about complaint processes where we cannot or will not consider the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of Mr X having been caused a significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman