The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to no longer hold a restorative justice meeting. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision. There also is not enough evidence of a significant injustice to justify an investigation, because the Council is still offering to meet with the victim to hear her voice about how its actions impacted her. The meeting would still include an independent facilitator, but not the individual officers whose actions caused the impact.
The complaint
Ms B says the Council has gone back on an agreement to hold a restorative justice meeting. Ms B says the Council’s communication has been poor, and it has taken too long to arrange a meeting. Ms B says the Council shows a pattern of behaviour in misleading and raising expectations, which only increases mistrust and adds to distress.
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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Restorative justice gives victims the chance to meet or communicate with their offender to explain the real impact of the crime - it empowers victims by giving them a voice. It also holds offenders to account for what they have done and helps them to take responsibility and make amends. Restorative justice often involves a conference, where a victim meets their offender face to face. Sometimes, when a face-to-face meeting is not the best way forward, the victim and offender will communicate via letters, recorded interviews, or video instead. Both parties must be willing to take part.
Ms B acts for her friend, Ms C. The Council previously offered to arrange a restorative justice meeting between Ms C and two council officers. The Council now says as the two officers did not commit an offence it will not impose a restorative justice meeting on them. The Council says it has acted with its employees to address shortfalls in their practice.
The Council still offers to meet with Ms C and an independent facilitator to give Ms C an opportunity to communicate the impact on her from failures by the Council. The Council would then share the information with the two officers.
Although Ms C is disappointed and upset by this change, I do not consider there is enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify an Ombudsman investigation. The Council’s decision was made by relevant officers, taking into consideration published information about the restorative justice process. The Council wrote to Ms B and Ms C explaining the reasons for its decision.
Nor is there enough evidence of a significant injustice to justify investigation. Ms C would like to face the relevant council staff and tell them the impact they had on her, but if the officers did not agree to that the Council could not force that to happen. The Ombudsman takes the view actions of individual officers are on behalf of the Council and it is the Council that is ultimately responsible for any impact caused by its officers’ fault. The Council is still offering to meet with Ms C and listen to the impact its actions had on her.
The Council has mismanaged expectations by offering a restorative justice meeting. The decision it has now made could have been made much sooner. The Council has apologised to Ms B and Ms C for the upset caused by its change of decision. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would reach a different outcome.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, nor enough evidence of a significant injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. The Council has apologised for the upset caused by its change of decision; it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman