The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s actions after she asked it for assistance with taking down an extension to her home. I am ending my investigation because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating this matter. Nor will I investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council helped with her son’s care needs. Any fault there may have been has not caused a significant enough injustice to justify investigating and the Council has taken steps to address Miss X’s complaint about this.
The complaint
Miss X initially complained the Council had no right to demolish an extension she had privately paid to have built.
She also complained the Council failed her disabled son when she asked it for assistance around his care and support needs.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I had contact with Miss X’s representative and considered the information both they and Miss X provided.
I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it provided.
Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
Background
Demolition of Miss X’s extension Miss X paid for an extension to be built at her property and she said this was to benefit her disabled son. Miss X did not initially obtain permission from her landlord to build the extension, and she did not obtain planning permission.
In September 2021, Miss X’s landlord saw that she had started building the extension and it told her she needed to ask it for retrospective permission. When Miss X then did this, the landlord agreed, but set out conditions that Miss X had to comply with, as part of this permission.
At some point in 2022, there was a dispute between Miss X and the landlord about the extension and Miss X contacted the Council for its help. Miss X’s landlord told her it would start court proceedings to get her to remove the extension.
The Council said because it saw Miss X’s mental health was deteriorating over the situation, it agreed to speak to her landlord to see how it could help. In early December, the Council said they spoke to the landlord, and the evidence shows, the landlord said Miss X would have to remove the extension.
The Council agreed it would help Miss X with removing the extension and in December 2022, Miss X accepted this offer. Miss X however disputes this.
In February 2023, after the removal, Miss X got back in touch with the Council to make a complaint. She was unhappy the Council had removed the extension because she said she had the landlord’s permission, and she said she had checked there was no planning permission needed.
Care and support for Miss X’s son In January 2023, the Council agreed it would arrange for a social worker from Adult Social Care to meet with Miss X’s son and start an assessment of his care and support needs.
A social worker then went to Miss X’s home, along with health practitioners. The Council said Miss X asked them to leave before it could start the assessment.
Since then, the Council met with Miss X in November 2023 and agreed a plan with Miss X that would allow it to meet with her son, but the Council said all efforts immediately after this were refused by Miss X. Miss X disputes this version of events.
In January 2024, the Council sent Miss X a final response to her complaint saying until Miss X’s son got in touch again, it could not progress her son’s care and support needs assessment.
The Council told me following in March 2024, two social workers from its adult social care team have now visited Miss X’s son and are preparing an assessment of his care and support needs.
My findings
Demolition of Miss X’s extension The Council offered to fund the demolition works needed to remove Miss X’s extension. The Council said it made it clear to Miss X that it would not rebuild the extension once it was demolished. On balance of the available evidence, in December 2022, Miss X confirmed she was happy to allow the Council to remove the extension and she was aware new one would not be rebuilt.
Miss X may feel aggrieved because the Council did this and she subsequently told the Council she had the landlord’s conditional permission. The evidence of the complaint shows Miss X believes the Council should rebuild the extension and her complaint from her representative asks for the Council to financially compensate her for loss.
Miss X told me the Council had agreed it would rebuild the extension but does not have this in writing. The Council have said they did not make this commitment. Where we have disputed evidence, we can make decisions based on the balance of probabilities to decide which scenario is more likely.
An investigation is not justified here because the evidence suggests there is no fault in the Councils’ actions in removing the extension at Miss X’s request. Even if we were to find a fault in how the Council responded to this request, we could not achieve Miss X’s wishes, which are for the Council to compensate her or for the Council to rebuild her extension. Accordingly, and because of these considerations, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable in us carrying out an investigation into the Council’s actions here.
Care and support for Miss X’s son The Council said it was not able to start a care and support assessment because Miss X would not allow it to get access to her son at their home and remain there to meaningfully start the process. It would be appropriate for the Council to arrange to complete a care needs assessment to identify if Miss X’s son had any eligible needs and if so, how best to meet these needs.
However, the Council could not proceed without the cooperation of Miss X and her son. Given Miss X’s initial reluctance to allow this, and the fact the Council repeatedly tried to contact Miss X’s son through her, any injustice there may have been in the past is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Additionally, because the Council has now started the assessment process it has removed any injustice to Miss X’s son that may have been remaining.
If Miss X subsequently has any concerns about the Council’s eventual assessment once complete and its decisions, it is open to her to make a new complaint about that to the Council.
Final decision
I have ended my investigation because there is no worthwhile outcome I can achieve in respect of Miss X’s main complaint and any injustice there may have been to Miss X’s son is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman