The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with Mr X’s home. We shall not revisit matters we have previously decided. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s handling of a meeting and the Council’s complaint-handling. If Mr X wants us to consider any other points, he should complete the Council’s complaint procedure first.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with his concerns about his house. He says this has caused suffering because the house is not safe.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence from the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complains the Council has not properly followed its procedures since he raised concerns about his private rented property. We will normally only investigate such complaints if: we have not already decided the matter complained of; and the Council has had a reasonable opportunity to deal with the complaint (usually by completing the Council’s complaint procedure).
On point a), we have already investigated and decided a previous complaint from Mr X about various matters concerning his home. We shall not revisit our previous decision now.
On point b), I have only seen evidence of one formal complaint by Mr X to the Council that has completed the Council’s complaint procedure since the matters we previously investigated. That complaint was about: The Council’s handling of a meeting where Mr X raised concerns about an electrician - Our previous decision covered how the Council had dealt with the concerns about the electrician. We did not fault the Council. In the circumstances, it would be a disproportionate use of public money for us to investigate how the Council handled a meeting about the electrician when we have already decided the substantive matter the meeting was about. I do not consider the Council’s handling of the meeting in itself disadvantaged Mr X significantly enough to warrant investigation.
The Council’s failure to follow its complaint procedure properly when Mr X complained about how it handled the meeting - It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Therefore, as we are not investigating how the Council handled the meeting, we shall not investigate how the Council dealt with the resulting complaint. I note the Council offered Mr X £150 for some delay dealing with his complaint. However, for the reasons I have given, I shall not consider whether that was a suitable remedy for any fault in the complaint-handling.
If Mr X is unhappy with any other substantive points in the Council’s handling of matters since the events we previously investigated, it is reasonable to expect him to put any such concerns through the Council’s complaint procedure first. If he remains dissatisfied after that, he can complain to us.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We shall not revisit matters we have previously decided. It would be disproportionate to investigate the meeting about the electrician and the Council’s complaint-handling. If Mr X wants us to consider any other points, he should complete the Council’s complaint procedure first.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman