The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate how the Council handled Mr X’s complaint about inaccurate information provided at a public meeting about the Council’s waste contractor. This is because we have decided any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council provided inaccurate or incomplete information. This happened in response to a public question at a Council meeting about the Veolia waste and street cleansing contract.
Mr X says this undermines public confidence in information provided at Council meetings and has caused him time and trouble in pursuing the matter through the complaints process.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
People may complain to us about injustice caused by: ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ by a public organisation we could investigate; or the actions of an organisation in connection with privately arranged adult social care.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1) or section 34C(1)(a)).
We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), or section 34B(8)).
We will not normally investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), or section 34B(8)).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council investigated Mr X‘s complaint and, at Stage 2, partially upheld it. The Council accepted the information given at the meeting was not sufficiently precise and could have led to misunderstanding. It said the response failed to distinguish between the formal contractual mobilisation period and subsequent operational stabilisation activities. However, the Council said members or the public were not intentionally misled, and the statement was not inaccurate. It decided a formal correction of the Council record was not needed. It clarified the issue for the complaint response and identified learning for future communication.
Mr X disagrees with the Council's decision not to publish a separate public clarification. The impact he describes is the time and trouble involved in pursuing the complaint and his concern about public confidence in Council information. These concerns are not sufficient to amount to a significant personal injustice. The complaint is principally about the accuracy and presentation of information provided in a public meeting and the Council's approach to clarifying that information, rather than a matter causing a substantial adverse impact on Mr X personally.
The law means we can choose only to investigate a complaint where the person has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the body complained about. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
I recognise the circumstances of Mr X’s complaint have affected him, but this is not significant enough to warrant us investigating.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman