Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the complaints he raised about the Council’s actions in relation to safeguarding and housing concerns. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. In addition, there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable as the substantive matters that led to the complaint have been resolved.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of the complaints he raised about the Council’s actions in relation to safeguarding and housing concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X raised his first complaint in June 2024. He complained about officers arranging a home visit and wanting to speak to him despite him having provided medical evidence that stated he could not interact with people due to his medical conditions. He also complained the officers would not explain why they wanted to visit.
6. The Council completed a home visit to Mr X in July 2024. During the visit, the officers spoke with Mr X’s carers and asked to speak with Mr X.
7. In August 2024, a tenancy sustainment officer (TSO) emailed Mr X confirming they would be visiting alongside a social worker to meet with Mr X and his carer. Mr X responded declining the social worker but agreed for the TSO to meet with him to ensure his tenancy conditions were being met. Mr X said he was never told another social worker was required and believed the meeting in July 2024 had covered all issues.
8. Mr X submitted a second complaint at the end of August 2024. In this complaint, Mr X again complains about the Council’s handling of the case, but with focus on the way the TSO dealt with him and the insistence for him to speak with officers despite being aware that Mr X could not engage with strangers. I acknowledged Mr X’s second complaint was about new officers. However, the actions complained about was broadly similar to matters complained about in his first complaint.
9. The Council issued its complaint response to Mr X’s first complaint in August 2024, before Mr X raised his second complaint. In the response, the Council said:
• Safeguarding concerns had been raised due to concerns about Mr X’s health and wellbeing.
• The information received indicated Mr X was a vulnerable adult who may be experiencing abuse/neglect as concerns were raised about hoarding, risk of fire, and possible self-neglect. Therefore, this required a safeguarding response.
• An email was sent to Mr X to explain the reasons for a joint visit with the housing team.
• Initial communication with Mr X could have been more person centred and reassuring to him. It also agreed more transparent communication could have been adopted.
10. The Council did not respond to Mr X’s second complaint. In February 2025, after Mr X chased the Council for a response, the Council explained it did not respond to the second complaint as it considered it was about the same issues as his first complaint. The Council acknowledged it should have written to Mr X to explain this.
11. Mr X made subsequent complaints in January and March 2025. Having reviewed the complaints, I am satisfied these were broadly about the same issues as his complaint of June 2024. Mr X provided some further detail about the actions he wanted to complain about that specifically happened during the July 2024. There were also some new complaints about matters that happened in a hospital. However, these were not matters for the Council as the officer who spoke with Mr X was not a Council employee.
12. An investigation is not proportionate as we are not likely to reach any different findings or outcomes. The Council has responded to Mr X’s complaints and explained why officers had arranged visits and why safeguarding action was initiated. The Council is allowed to decide not to respond to further complaints if it considers the substantial mattes have previously been addressed.
13. Further, an investigation is not proportionate because there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable as the substantive matters that led to the complaint have been resolved. The Council confirmed a visit was completed in December 2024 which confirmed there was no fire risk to the property and so closed the case.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. In addition, there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable as the substantive matters that led to the complaint have been resolved.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman