Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to assist Mr X with his housing situation. This is because the evidence shows the fault identified has not led to a significant injustice for Mr X. Further, an investigation would not lead to a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to contact his housing provider to discuss a mutual exchange.
2. Mr X said he has been left in unsuitable housing because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X was referred to the Council’s service for supporting adults with mental health needs in late 2022. The Council’s initial goal was to help improve Mr X’s living conditions and assist him to move closer to his family. Mr X was also placed on the Council’s housing register and told the waiting list for properties in his banding was several years long.
7. Mr X received an offer of an appropriate property from his current housing provider which he initially declined. He later changed his mind and asked the Council to liaise with his landlord on his behalf. As Mr X had previously indicated he would not accept any housing with this provider there was confusion on the Council’s part as to whether he wanted to move forward with this provider. The Council concedes it therefore did not contact Mr X’s housing provider despite advising it would. Mr X complained about this as well as the Council’s failure to respond to his messages promptly.
8. The Council investigated and explained the actions it had taken to support Mr X. The Council found evidence it had provided support to Mr X in line with the goals set out in his agreement with it but acknowledged it had failed to contact his landlord and there was delay in responding to his text messages. The Council noted this as lessons learned for the future.
9. Mr X remains unhappy with the Council’s actions and wants us to find it fault. It would have been best practice for the Council to follow up with Mr X’s landlord and to respond to his text messages within a timely manner. The Council has conceded this is fault. However, I can see that these situations were complicated by Mr X’s initial refusal to accept the offered property and his removal of consent to communicate with him. The evidence does not show that Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice due to the fault identified here and consequently an investigation would not be likely to provide a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the evidence shows the fault identified has not led to a significant injustice for Mr X. Further, an investigation would not lead to a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman