Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - May - September 1998 > C.1488/96
First Report Session 1998-99
Volume 3 - 1st Report - Session 1998-99
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
Failure to deal with a complaint about the actions of a British Ambassador
Matters considered:
Mr X, who had earlier complained to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) that the Ambassador had responded to a complaint which he had made about a British Consulate by writing a critical letter to his employers, as a result of which he had been obliged to leave his employment and so incur considerable financial loss, complained that FCO had failed to deal fully and impartially with his complaint about the Ambassador's action, refusing to accept that it had been wrong.
Summary of case
Mr X was employed by a British company abroad. On 20 April 1994 he wrote to the British Consul in the country where he was working asking certain questions about the Consulate's practices and employment policies, and expressing dissatisfaction with the behaviour of some staff at the Consulate. On 1 June, having received no reply, he repeated his comments and questions in a letter to the Ambassador. The Ambassador replied on 18 June. On 28 June, not having received the Ambassador's letter, Mr X wrote to him saying that if he did not receive a reply he would take the matter further. On 10 July the Ambassador sent Mr X a copy of the letter of 18 June; he also wrote to the Chief Executive of Mr X's employers enclosing copies of his correspondence with Mr X and saying that he found Mr X's tone aggravating, particularly in view of the role played by the Embassy in establishing and maintaining the employers' position in the country concerned. On 13 July Mr X's employers interviewed him about the Ambassador's letter and other disciplinary matters, following which Mr X resigned from his employment.
During 1995 and 1996 Mr X and his then Member raised with FCO the matter of the Ambassador's letter to his employers. The then Minister of State at FCO replied that in view of the employers' role in a contract between the British Government and the country concerned the Ambassador kept in close touch with the Chief Executive and had accordingly brought to his attention the correspondence with Mr X. Whatever actions the employers had subsequently taken had been a matter for them.
Findings
Mr X was entitled to complain to the Consul and subsequently to the Ambassador. I saw no justification for the Ambassador's letter of 10 July to the employers: it served no purpose in the proper handling of Mr X's complaint, and it implied that Mr X had no right to complain and that the matter was likely to spoil relations between the Embassy and the employers. I found that quite extraordinary and wholly deplorable. Mr X was, moreover, entitled to expect that his correspondence with the Ambassador would remain confidential. I criticised FCO for failing to admit that the Ambassador's action was not defensible and for not apologising accordingly.
Remedy
The Permanent Under Secretary of FCO and the Ambassador apologised for the fact that the Ambassador had written in such terms to the employers and that Mr X's correspondence with the Ambassador had been sent to the employers without his consent, and for the way in which his subsequent complaints had been mishandled. FCO offered to make Mr X an ex gratia payment of £5,000 to make amends for the general mishandling of his complaints.
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
Full text of this investigation
|
