The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with disrepair issues at the complainant’s property. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.
The complaint
Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with disrepair issues at a property he owns. He says: He disagreed with the decision to serve a prohibition order and says the correct processes were not followed; The Council did not answer his questions and forced him to carry out unnecessary works; The Council has discriminated against him; The correct processes were not followed when the Council interviewed him in relation to breaching the prohibition order; The Council did not inform him that shutters to secure the property could be removed before the repair works were completed; The Council failed to look into his concerns about a vehicle parked at a neighbouring property; He is unhappy with how the Council dealt with his request for information.
Mr X says he has been caused significant stress and suffered financial loss because of the Council’s actions. Mr X says the Council should apologise and compensate him.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) 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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council used its powers under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to secure a property owned by Mr X. Mr X says the Council failed to inform him the shutters used to secure the building could be removed and instead he was told he would need to first comply with a prohibition order for the property. The shutters have been removed, however there was a period where Mr X could only access the property at specified times. While this may have been frustrating, I do not consider Mr X suffered any significant injustice in this regard as he was still able to enter the building and carry out the required repair works.
Mr X has raised many concerns about the Council’s decision to issue a prohibition order. However, Mr X had the right to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) if he disagreed with the order. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his appeal right and the Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had a right to appeal. I understand Mr X has complained about the processes followed by the Council before it served the notice. He says questions were not answered and unnecessary repairs were requested. However, I consider these issues related to the matter that could have been appealed.
Mr X has complained the Council said he has breached the prohibition order and says it did not follow the proper procedures when interviewing him about the matter. However, the Council has started legal proceedings against Mr X. The issues he has raised are related to these proceedings and the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints related to the start of court action or about matters which have been subject to legal proceedings.
Mr X is unhappy with how the Council dealt with his request for information. I understand Mr X has complained to the Information Commisioner’s Office (ICO) about how the Council dealt with his requests. This is the appropriate body to deal with these issues. Mr X will have a right to appeal if he disagrees with the ICO’s findings.
Mr X says the Council did not look into his concerns about a vehicle parked at his neighbour’s property which he believed may be dangerous. The Council says it looked into Mr X’s concerns and referred the matter to its housing services team as it related to a council owned property. As Mr X’s complaint relates to the Council’s role as a social landlord the matter is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for him to use his right of appeal in relation to some of the issues complained about. The Ombudsman also cannot investigate matters related to the start of court proceedings. Mr X has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman