The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue Mr X with an anti-social behaviour warning letter. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says an employee of the Council was approached by an employee of his housing association to get the Council to issue him with an anti-social behaviour (ASB) warning letter despite there being no evidence to support this. He says the Council employee and housing association employee are friends and this influenced the former’s actions.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. ,(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Following the involvement of various agencies, including Mr X’s housing association and the police, the Council issued Mr X with an ASB warning letter in connection with a neighbour with whom he has a poor relationship.
Mr X complained about this alleging the Council officer dealing with his case had been influenced by their friendship with an employee at the housing association, which had a grudge against him, and which gave false and biased information which the Council used in deciding to send him the warning letter.
The Council considered his complaint under the two stages of its complaints procedure but did not uphold it. It found proper procedures had been followed in the decision to issue the letter and that his claims of a friendship affecting a Council employee’s actions had been appropriately investigated but were not supported by evidence. It had invited Mr X to share the evidence he said he had but at the Stage 2 consideration of his complaint, he was not willing to do so.
We do not investigate every complaint we receive, and it is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils. We cannot question decisions taken by councils where the correct steps have been followed and the relevant evidence and information considered. I have seen no evidence to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision here.
Mr X says he has evidence to support his claims of friendship affecting Council decisions taken on his case. It is open to him to share this with the Council, as it had earlier requested, so it can consider the matter further.
Neither the housing association, its employees nor the police fall within our jurisdiction so we cannot consider complaints about them.
Mr X says he has requested information about his case from the Council which it has yet to provide. Mr X can make a formal SAR and/or FOI request to the Council. If he is not satisfied with its response, he can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office which is the body best placed to deal with such issues.
Mr X says requests for contact from the Council were not always acted upon and that calls were not returned. However, we will not investigate these secondary issues when we are not investigating the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman