The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s request for funding for a replacement boiler. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his request for funding for a replacement boiler. He says it delayed unreasonably and offered him a quote for the work, including a contribution from him, far in excess of that reasonably charged for such work.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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 considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council about its handling of his request for funding for a replacement boiler and that when given, the quote provided for the work was far in excess of that normally charged and much more expensive than the quote he obtained himself.
The Council explained it could not comment on the private quote he had received (and subsequently took up) because it did not know if the quote was on a like for like basis. It said it could only provide grant funding if customers agreed to use its procured suppliers who meet strict quality assurance criteria for their work and level of customer service. However, it did acknowledge that it had failed to follow up with enquiries about Mr X’s medical condition which could have led to additional funding for the boiler.
It did take some time for Mr X’s request for funding to be progressed which was caused only in part while the Council waited for copies of his bank statements. The Council did partially uphold Mr X’s complaint because of its failure to make follow up enquiries. However, while this is noted, Mr X decided to arrange his own cheaper boiler replacement. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and here an investigation is unlikely to usefully add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman