The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a Prohibition Order served on Mr X as a private landlord. This is because the substantive issue falls outside our jurisdiction due to the availability of appeal rights against the Order to the First Tier Tribunal and 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 matters relating to a Prohibition Order and Variation he received from the Council as a private landlord. He says an officer involved in his case has been involved in a personal vendetta against him and has abused his power.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 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 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 and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to matters relating to the issuing of the Prohibition Order and its variation. Mr X has or had appeal rights to the First Tier Tribunal which we would reasonably expect him to have used and so this matter falls outside our jurisdiction and will not be investigated.
With regard to the Council’s handling of Mr X’s case, it acknowledged that its correspondence had at times been unhelpful and it had not assisted Mr X in understanding properly what had been required of him. It said there had been a breakdown in communication and that it might have been helpful if a series of meetings had taken place to address the relevant issues. To resolve matters the Council has offered Mr X a meeting and £500 to recognise any upset caused to him.
As an investigation would be unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a significantly different outcome, there are insufficient grounds for us to further pursue the matter.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the substantive issue falls outside our jurisdiction due to the availability of appeal rights against the Order to the First Tier Tribunal and 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