The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council not allowing the public to comment on online news articles. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Mr B complains the Council stopped allowing the public to comment on articles on the Council’s website. Mr B says the public should be allowed to comment easily on what the Council is doing.
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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr B.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council says it does not have the resources to moderate these comments, which are often off-topic, irrelevant and offensive.
This is a decision for the Council to make and the Council has explained the reasons for its decision. It is not our role to tell the Council it should allow such comments. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman