The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about complaint-handling and a housing matter. The underlying substantive issue is late, without a reasonable prospect of reaching a clear enough view now. It is also more properly for the courts than for us. In that context, it would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s refusal to deal with Mr X’s complaint. We also cannot achieve what Mr X wants.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to deal with his complaint. His complaint to the Council was about the handling of his application for housing help in 2001. Mr X says this has caused serious mental health problems. He wants the Council to pay him compensation of £25 million.
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 late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X’s complaint to us is that the Council refused to deal with his complaint as it said he had complained too late. We will normally only investigate a Council’s complaint-handling if we would also investigate the underlying substantive matter that caused the person to complain to the Council.
Here, the substantive matter is that Mr X says the Council did not offer suitable housing when he sought housing help in 2001. Mr X says this alleged failure caused him mental health problems that he still has today. He asked the Council for £25 million compensation. He wants the Ombudsman to help him get that.
There are several reasons we will not investigate the Council’s actions in 2001 and the claimed impact of those actions on Mr X.
Mr X blames the Council’s actions in 2001 for his health problems. He has known about those actions and about his health problems for many years. So the restriction in paragraph 3 above applies. The fact that Mr X’s health problems continue today does not prevent that restriction applying. This is because the complaint is about the Council’s action that Mr X alleges started the problems. I appreciate Mr X’s mental health problems could have made it difficult to pursue a complaint and come to us within twelve months. Nevertheless, I consider he could reasonably have pursued matters and come to us much sooner than 23 years after the events. Given the passage of time, it is also unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now about events so long ago.
Also, Mr X’s claim the Council’s actions affected his mental health is really a personal injury claim. The courts could consider that, as Mr X knows. So the restriction in paragraph 4 applies.
I appreciate court action might be difficult given Mr X’s health problems. However, Mr X could seek advice and could ask the court to make reasonable adjustments. The possible cost of court action does not in itself automatically mean the Ombudsman should investigate instead. Questions of causation, liability, damages and compensation for personal injury are not straightforward legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide them. So it would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court for a decision on this point.
Underlying Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman is his wish for compensation. He wants the Ombudsman to help him get this. However, the Ombudsman does not recommend compensation in the way the courts can. Compensation for damages is a matter for the courts, so it is inappropriate for the Ombudsman to become involved. So we cannot achieve what Mr X wants.
As we will not investigate the substantive matter that led to Mr X’s complaint to the Council, it would be disproportionate for us to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation. Therefore we shall not consider whether the Council was wrong to refuse to deal with Mr X’s complaint in its complaint procedure.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The underlying substantive issues – whether the Council was at fault in 2001 and whether that damaged Mr X’s health - are late, without a reasonable prospect of reaching a clear enough view now. It is also more properly for the courts than for us. In that context, it would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s refusal to deal with Mr X’s complaint. We also cannot achieve what Mr X wants.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman