Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council delayed in arranging for Mr X’s property to be decluttered. That is because we are satisfied with the action the Council proposes to take.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed complete decluttering work at his property. He said that was causing him significant distress. He also said the agency tasked with completing the decluttering caused damage to his property and the Council was refusing to accept responsibility.
2. Mr X wants the Council to:
• apologise and complete the work as a matter of urgency;
• compensate him for the distress; and
• appoint a different agency to complete the work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council said it initially agreed to clear large furniture from Mr X’s home that was limiting available space or posed a hazard. It arranged for an agency to complete that work at the start of 2022.
8. Mr X asked the Council for more support with decluttering of personal belongings. The Council visited Mr X in May to discuss the support needed. In July 2022, the Council agreed for three hours of support a week for twelve weeks, to further assist with decluttering. It agreed that work would start the following month. Mr X subsequently complained to the Council about the delays in starting the work and damage to his slow cooker caused by the agency that initially cleared his property.
9. If we investigated this complaint, it is likely we would find the Council at fault for delays in arranging a provider to compete the decluttering. That has caused Mr X avoidable distress and frustration.
10. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by its actions by:
• Apologising to Mr X for the delay in identifying a provider to complete the decluttering.
• Identity how to complete the decluttering work and start that within two months of our final decision.
11. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint. It said Mr X had identified a provider to complete the decluttering work, and it had agreed to provide four hours of support a week for nine weeks. I am satisfied with the actions the Council has proposed to take therefore we will not investigate this complaint further.
12. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage caused to his property by the initial agency completing the decluttering. That is because we cannot determine whether the agency, acting on behalf of the Council, was responsible for the damage. It is reasonable for Mr X to either claim for the damage on his insurance or make a claim to the small claims court.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman